The Sacred Landscape at Leska and Minoan Kythera (Prehistory Monographs, 72) 9781931534376, 9781623034429, 1931534373

Citation preview

The Sacred Landscape at Leska and Minoan Kythera

Mercourios Georgiadis

The Sacred Landscape at Leska and Minoan Kythera

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 72

The Sacred Landscape at Leska and Minoan Kythera

By

Mercourios Georgiadis

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2023

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia, PA Printing and Binding Integrated Books International, Dulles, VA

INSTAP Academic Press, a part of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), was established to publish projects relevant to the history of the Aegean world, in particular from the Paleolithic to the 8th century b.c. It is a scholarly nonprofit publisher specializing in high-quality publications of primary source material from archaeological excavations as well as individual studies dealing with material from the prehistoric periods—exemplified by its Prehistory Monographs series of volumes. INSTAP is committed to engaging a variety of audiences by disseminating knowledge through its scholarly publishing program, which produces award-winning monographs that are both academically and popularly acclaimed.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Georgiadis, M. (Mercourios), author. Title: The sacred landscape at Leska and Minoan Kythera / by Mercourios Georgiadis. Description: Philadelphia : INSTAP Academic Press, 2023. | Series: Prehistory monographs ; 72 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “The discovery and excavation of Leska revealed the presence of a second peak sanctuary on Minoan Kythera. The study of the material remains from this site along with the landscape elements provided the context in which this research was conducted and its results were assessed. This has allowed a more in-depth analysis of the links between society and cult, and the ways in which the landscape was sacralized in this phase at Leska and its immediate surroundings. Thus, the active role landscape played at Leska was demonstrated through the understanding of the local beliefs and cultic practices. The broader analysis of the sacred landscape on Kythera provided a unique research opportunity for assessing Aegean religion during the Minoan period outside Crete”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022041020 | ISBN 9781931534376 (paperback) | ISBN 9781623034429 (adobe pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Kythēra Island (Greece)--Antiquities. | Kythēra Island (Greece)--Religion. | Excavations (Archaeology)--Greece--Kythēra Island. | Minoans--Greece--Kythēra Island. | Minoans--Religion. Classification: LCC DF901.K57 G46 2022 | DDC 938/.6--dc23/eng/20220831 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022041020

Front cover View of the Leska peak from the south; photo M. Georgiadis. Back cover View of the baetyl at the highest point of Leska peak, from the west; photo M. Georgiadis. Portrait of the author; photo G. Apostolou. Satellite view of the island of Kythera; Google Earth, accessed October 26, 2022, https://earth. google.com/web/@36.24135585,23.06259416,122.41382555a,67269.48362217d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=CkoaSBJCCiUweDE0OWRlNzYwOGI5ZmQyOGQ6MHgxNTg5OTAwNzFlOWEzMWE3GaQFHs6yIUJAIeuUovA0-jZAKgdLe XRoZXJhGAIgAQ. View of the Leska peak from the south; photo M. Georgiadis.

Copyright © 2023 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

To Antonis and Litsa

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations in the Text. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ix List of Tables in the Text....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... xi List of Figures. .................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... xiii List of Plates. .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... xv Acknowledgments. . ............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... xix List of Abbreviations. .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... xxi 1. Introduction.................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 1 2. Fieldwork. .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 17 3. Pottery. . . . ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 33 4. Small Finds. .................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 89 5. The Palimpsest of Human Activities at Leska.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 107 6. Landscape Analysis. ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 115 7. Rituals, Cult, and Beliefs.. .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 131 8. Comparisons and Synthesis................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 145

viii

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

References.. ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 155 Index.. . . . . . . ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 171 Figures Plates

List of Illustrations in the Text

Illustration 1. Map of Kythera showing sites discussed in the text: (1) Kastri; (2) Hagios Georgios sto Vouno; (3) the peak of Leska; (4) the Katafygadi Cave; (5) the summit of Mt. Drymonas. . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 2 Illustration 2. Map of the area of Mt. Mermigkari: (A) North Path; (B1) East Path north; (B2) East Path south; (C) South Path; (1) the peak of Leska; (2) the Katafygadi Cave; (3) the Lazarianika burial; (4) Merm.1; (5) Merm.2; (6) Merm.3; (7) Merm.4; (8) Merm.5. ...... 3 Illustration 3. Sketch map of the surveyed area of the Leska peak showing the survey grid and concentrations of finds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Illustration 4. Excavation trenches on the peak of Leska.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Illustration 5. Section of the north side of T.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Illustration 6.

Percentages of vessel types represented at Leska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Tables in the Text

Table 1.

Soil types, contexts, and strata from the excavation of Leska.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 30

Table 2.

Number of sherds/m2 in each trench excavated at Leska.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 34

Table 3. Percentages of fine and coarse (Red Micaceous and Mudstone) wares at Leska. Smaller coarse ware categories are present where total percentages of Red Micaceous and Mudstone do not equal 100%.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 35 Table 4. Number and percentage of identifiable diagnostic sherds by pottery shape. Bridge-spouted jars here are considered alongside low-spouted jugs due to their similarity in shape... . . . . .... 41 Table 5.

Number and percentage of decorated sherds at Leska by type of decoration.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 78

Table 6.

Protopalatial vessels from Leska.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 87

List of Figures

Figure 1.

Conical cups (P1–P16) and bell cups (P17–P20).

Figure 2. Tumblers (P21–P23), carinated cups (P24, P25), and straight-sided cups (P26–P37, P40– P43). Figure 3. Vapheio (P44), hemispherical (P45–P56), and stemmed (P57) cups. Figure 4. Conical bowls (P61–P68), hemispherical bowl (P69), bowls with everted/flaring rim (P70– P73), and pedestal bowls (P74, P75). Figure 5. Basins (P76–P80, P81 [profile left; view of rim from above, right], P82, P83), ring-handled basins (P84–P86), and kalathoi (P87, P88). Figure 6. Kalathoi (P89, P90), plates (P91–P93), lamps/braziers (P94–P96), rhyta (P97, P100), and tripod vessels (P101–P105). Figure 7. Tripod cooking vessels (P106–P120). Figure 8.

Tripod cooking vessels (P121–P123, P130–P132).

Figure 9. Tripod cooking vessels (P133–P135), jug with cutaway spout (P136), and ewers (P140–P144). Figure 10. Low-spouted jugs (P145, P146), juglets (P149–P153), and bridge-spouted jars (P154–P160). Figure 11. Bridge-spouted jars (P161–P170) and hole-mouthed jars (P171, P172, P176). Figure 12. Hole-mouthed jars (P177, P178), collar-necked jar (P179), wide-mouthed jars (P180–P185), piriform jars (P186–P188), and jugs/amphorae (P189, P190).

xiv

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Figure 13. Jugs/amphorae (P192–P198), amphorae (P199, P200) and neckless/pithoid jars with everted rim (P201–P203). Figure 14. Neckless/pithoid jars with everted rim (P204–P210), pithos (P211), stone vessels (SV3, SV5), and horns of consecration (F5).

List of Plates

Plate 1A. View of Mt. Mermigkari from the east, showing the peaks of Mermigkari (left), Katafygadi (center), and Leska (right). Plate 1B.

View of the Leska peak from the east.

Plate 2A.

Entrance to the Katafygadi Cave from the east.

Plate 2B.

View of the settlement of Kastri from the north.

Plate 3A. Part of the Kastri cemetery from the south, with the Hagios Georgios chapel visible on the mountain peak in the background. Plate 3B.

Hagios Georgios sto Vouno from the south.

Plate 4A.

Trench 1, spit 1, from the south.

Plate 4B.

Trench 1, spit 2, from the south.

Plate 5A.

Trench 1, spit 3, from the south.

Plate 5B.

Trench 2, spit 1, from the south.

Plate 6A.

Trench 2, spit 2, from the south.

Plate 6B.

Trench 2, spit 3, from the south.

Plate 7A.

Trench 3, spit 1, from the south.

Plate 7B.

Trench 3, spit 2, from the south.

xvi

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Plate 8A.

Trench 3, spit 3, from the south.

Plate 8B.

Trench 3, spit 4, from the south.

Plate 9A.

Final depths of T.3 and T.4 from the south.

Plate 9B.

Trench 4, spit 1, from the south.

Plate 10A. Trench 4, spit 2, from the south. Plate 10B.

Trench 5, spit 1, from the south.

Plate 11A. Trench 5, spit 2, from the south. Plate 11B.

Trench 6, spit 1, from the east.

Plate 12A. Trench 6, eastern part, spit 2, from the south. Plate 12B.

Trench 6, western part, spit 3, from the south.

Plate 13A. Final depths of T.6 from the south. Plate 13B.

Trench 7, spit 1, from the south.

Plate 14A. Final depths of T.7 and T.8 from the east. Plate 14B.

Trench 8, spit 1, from the south.

Plate 15A. Cairn 1 from the east. Plate 15B.

Final depth of Cairn 1 from the west.

Plate 16A. Cairn 2 from the west. Plate 16B.

Final depth of Cairn 2 from the east.

Plate 17. Pottery from Leska: Black-Glazed sherd from T.1, Black-Glazed handle from T.3, and BlackGlazed tile from Cairn 2; conical cup P15; straight-sided cups P29, P37–P39, and P43; cups with horizontal handles P58–P60; lamps P95 and P96; rhyta P97–P100; tripod cooking vessels P104, P112, P118, P122–P127, and P130. Plate 18. Pottery from Leska: tripod cooking vessels P131, P132, P134; jugs with cutaway spout P136, P138, P139; ewer P140; juglets P147 and P148; bridge-spouted jars P154, P163, P165, and P166; hole-mouthed jars P171–P175; wide-mouthed jar P180; piriform jars P186 and P188. Plate 19. Pottery from Leska: jug/amphora P190; amphora P200; neckless/pithoid jars P206, P207, P209, P210; vessels with push-through handles P212 and P213; jug with painted decoration P214; vessels with plastic decoration P215–P217; vessels with relief decoration P218–P224; vessel with incised decoration P225. Plate 20. Small finds from Leska: pebbles (Pb4–Pb6, Pb21, Pb24, Pb25); pieces of chert (Ch3, Ch5, Ch6); stone tools (ST1–ST3) and vessels (SV1–SV3, SV5); clay animal figurine (F1), horns of consecration (F2–F5), and balls (CB1–CB5); bronze pin (M1), basin (M2), pendant(?) (M3), and knife blade (miniature) (M4). Plate 21A. View of the Leska peak from the southeast pathway, from the south. Plate 21B.

View of the top of Leska from the mountainous pathway, from the south.

Plate 22A. View of the exposed bedrock at the highest point of the Leska peak, from the north, with the Drymonas peak in the background.

L I S T O F P L AT E S

Plate 22B.

xvii

View of the Tainaron peninsula looking northwest from the Leska peak.

Plate 23A. View of the highest snow-clad peak of the Taygetos mountain range looking northwest from the Leska peak. Plate 23B.

View of Cape Maleas (in the background) looking northeast from the Leska peak.

Plate 24A. Exposed bedrock at the highest point of the Leska peak, from the west, with Hagios Georgios sto Vouno at the back left. Plate 24B.

 iew of the island of Antikythera and the mountain peaks of western Crete (far background) V looking southeast from the Leska peak.

Plate 25A. View of Mt. Mermigkari and the Leska peak to the right, from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno in the west. Plate 25B. View of Leska peak from the west on the morning of July 3, 2011. Plate 26.

A proposed use of the exposed bedrock at the highest point of the peak as a baetyl.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are owed to a number of institutions that aided in the completion of this project in a number of ways. I would like to thank the Municipality of Kythera and its mayor at the time of this archaeological project, Theodoros Koukoulis, the Diocese of Kythera and Antikythera, the Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies (CSPS), and the Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands. The research conducted at Leska would not have been completed without financial support from the N. Aronis Trust Fund, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP; 2012), the Mediterranean Archaeological Trust (MAT; 2012), and the Bridging the Gaps: Next Generation Feasibility Award (2012) of the University of Nottingham, to all of whom I am grateful. There would have been no fieldwork undertaken nor any outcome without help from students and volunteers whom I thank from the bottom of my heart: Georgios Alexopoulos, Roula Beloka, Lena Deri, Sotirios Dimos, Georgia Florou, Natalia Kaponi, Maria Klementopoulou, Despina Kokkinou, Elisabeth Kytariolou, Andrew Lockett, Lena Lytsiou, Panagiota Mazi, Margarita Mentaki, Georgia Mourgi, Helen Murphy, Hera Papasaika, David Smith, Penelope Skalkoti, and Simos Trasanis. I am also grateful to other individuals who have helped this project in other ways: Christos Daskalopoulos, John Fardoulis, Despina Isaakidou, Nikolaos Kominos, and Adonis Kyrou. I also would like to express my gratitude to several colleagues who shared many discussions and commented on some of my ideas: Emilia Banou, Cyprian Broodbank, Alexander Coles, Craig Dicken, Nikolaos Dimakis, Anthi Dipla, Geli Frangou, Chrysanthi Gallou, Georgios Katavoutas, Genovefa Kefalidou, Evangelos

xx

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Kyriakidis, Vagelio Kiriatzi, Georgina Muskett, Krzysztof Nowicki, Hector Orengo, Norbert Schlager, Katy Soar, Asanz Suchith, and Konstantinos Trimmis. I also would like to express my gratitude to Iphigeneia Tournavitou, for her help and for discussions on various aspect of archaeology on Kythera. Special thanks also are owed to Aris Tsaravopoulos, for his endless support and help as well as for his inspiring passion for the archaeology of Kythera and Antikythera.

List of Abbreviations

APKAS Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archa­eological Survey ca. circa Ch chert cm centimeter(s) CSPS Centre for Spartan and Peloponne­ sian Studies d. diameter EB Early Bronze EBA Early Bronze Age EC Early Cycladic EH Early Helladic EM Early Minoan EPCA Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities ext. external F figurine FN Final Neolithic g gram(s) INSTAP Institute for Aegean Prehistory int. internal KIP Kythera Island Project km kilometer(s) L. length

LB Late Bronze LBA Late Bronze Age LC Late Cycladic LH Late Helladic LM Late Minoan m meter(s) M metal m asl meters above sea level MAT Mediterranean Archaeological Trust MB Middle Bronze MC Middle Cycladic MH Middle Helladic MM Middle Minoan mm millimeter(s) mya million years ago P pottery Pb pebble PG Protogeometric ST stone tool SV stone vessel T.1, etc. Trench 1, etc. th. thickness w. width

1

Introduction

Kythera The island of Kythera is situated southeast of the Peloponnese and northwest of Crete, forming the southwest edge of the Aegean Sea. It has a roughly oblong shape and is 278 km² in size (Ill. 1; Bevan 2002, 217; Bevan, Frederick, and Krachtopoulou 2003, 217; Bevan and Conolly 2003–2004, 123; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 259). The geographical position of the island makes it a nexus for voyages between the Peloponnese and Crete, as well as between the Aegean and Ionian Seas (Bevan 2002, 217; Sakellarakis 2003, 23). The research conducted on the island of Kythera has revealed a unique, insular sacred landscape, which was active during the Middle and early Late Bronze Age—roughly the first half of the 2nd millennium b.c. (ca. 2000–1500/1450 b.c.). This landscape included a number of cult sites that have been studied to greater or lesser extents. They seem to be part of a broader sacred narrative, which was meaningful to the whole island, interconnecting various beliefs and practices and encompassing different

cultic and ritual expressions. The sacred sites included the peak sanctuary at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Sakellarakis 1996; 2011; 2012; 2013; Sakellarakis, ed., 2013; Tournavitou 2014), the possibly cult-related Hagia Sofia Cave (Benton 1931–1932, 245; Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 151; Coldstream and Huxley 1984, 108), the Katafygadi Cave (Leonhard 1899, 15; Petrocheilos 1984, 63–64; Bartsiokas 1998, 33, figs. 70, 71; Tsaravopoulos 2009, 564; Trantalidou 2013, 492 n. 118; Trandalidou et al. 2013–2015), and the peak of Mt. Drymonas (G. Fragkou and A. Tsaravopoulos, pers. comm., 17 July 2014), as well as the numerous contemporary burials found at Kastri and throughout the island (Coldstream and Huxley, eds., 1972; Petrocheilos 1984; Bevan et al. 2002; Preston 2007). The discovery of another sacred site on the summit of Leska has provided richer data that allow a wider analysis and more substantial discussion of the sacred landscape on Kythera (Georgiadis 2012). The focus on Leska in this volume allows a better understanding of this particular site and the symbolic interactions and connections it had with

2

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

0

5 km

Illustration 1. Map of Kythera showing sites discussed in the text: (1) Kastri; (2) Hagios Georgios sto Vouno; (3) the peak of Leska; (4) the Katafygadi Cave; (5) the summit of Mt. Drymonas. Contour interval 100.00 m. After Anderson 1972, 32, fig. 1.

other cultic sites across the island. The presentation of Leska within its contemporary cultic context emphasizes the character and form of the sacred landscape that existed on contemporary Minoan Kythera. Furthermore, it allows broader discourse on the beliefs and practices in the contemporary Aegean, including Crete, the Aegean islands, and southern mainland Greece. This monograph has been divided into separate chapters that provide a coherent narrative combining finds and interpretations as well as broader analyses and discussions. In this introductory chapter, the geographical and EBA to early LBA archaeological background of Kythera are presented. Moreover, the evidence of research conducted at the numerous peak sanctuaries identified on Minoan Crete is provided in order to enrich the cultic context in which Leska belongs. Chapter 2 focuses on the discovery and research conducted at the new site of Leska. First, the methods used for the survey

are described, followed by the results. Second, the excavation methods are discussed, focusing on the trenches that were opened as well as the deposits recovered. In Chapter 3, the pottery remains from the survey and excavation are presented and analyzed. A presentation and discussion of the pottery fabrics found at the site is made, followed by a typological analysis. Then an in-depth analysis of the small finds recovered at this site is provided in Chapter 4, while in Chapter 5 the diachronic use of the Leska summit is presented, with each phase discussed separately. A discussion on the character of Leska and its classification as a peak sanctuary follows. Chapter 6 is comprised of an analysis of the role and significance of the landscape for this particular sanctuary within its broader Kytherian framework, as well as its symbolic relationship with other sacred sites. The focus of Chapter 7 is the cultic character of Leska, with a presentation of the rituals, practices, and beliefs that have been identified through the material remains. In the final chapter, Chapter 8, Leska is discussed in association with other contemporary religious sites on Kythera, thus placing it in its insular context. Additionally, the relationship of the peak sanctuary tradition on Kythera and Crete is discussed, and a synthesis of the analyses and ideas proposed for Leska is provided.

Leska Leska is situated on the western part of the island, southwest of the village of Mylopotamos (Ill. 2). This area is dominated by Mt. Mermigkari (Pl. 1A), which covers an area of ca. 7.50 km² and is the largest mountainous landscape on Kythera. It is also the highest mountain on the island, with three peaks: Mermigkari (505.89 m asl) in the south; Leska (496.50 m asl) in the north (Pl. 1B); and Katafygadi (489.30 m asl) in the west. The site of Leska itself is situated on the top of the northern peak of the same name, extending mainly to the immediate southern and western parts of its highest point. The site is located on a relatively flat terrace with exposed limestone bedrock, which is the geologic makeup of Mt. Mermigkari as a whole. The lowland area that extends to the east of Mt. Mer­migkari is fertile and rich in water resources like springs, wells, and streams, such as the Flomis

INTRODUCTION

3

N

Illustration 2. Map of the area of Mt. Mermigkari: (A) North Path; (B1) East Path north; (B2) East Path south; (C) South Path; (1) the peak of Leska; (2) the Katafygadi Cave; (3) the Lazarianika burial; (4) Merm.1; (5) Merm.2; (6) Merm.3; (7) Merm.4; (8) Merm.5. Scale 1:50,000. After HGMS 1982.

stream with almost perennial water. Furthermore, there is a high concentration of land plots as well as settlements, such as, from south to north, Lazarianika, Skoulantrianika, Rizes, Strasigadika, Mylopotamos, Piso Pygadi, and Kato Chora. It is worth noting that with the exception of the first two, these sites are concentrated around the northern part of this region, close to the Leska summit. In the mountainous area of Mermigkari, enclosures used as animal pens are located between the three peaks and mainly northwest of Leska. The site of Leska was discovered in 2003 when Aris Tsaravopoulos and Adonis Kyrou visited Mt. Mermigkari and the Katafygadi Cave. Kyrou climbed the peak of Leska, reaching its flat summit, and noted the presence of Minoan sherds on the surface and collected an intact Minoan vase. In 2011, the Municipality of Kythera (Δήμος Κυθήρων) became interested in exploring the site, and a rescue excavation was conducted by Tsaravopoulos and the 26th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (EPCA). Leska (λέσκα) is a term that belongs to the Cretan dialect, and it has been used in only a few cases outside the island, both on Kythera and Rhodes. On

Crete it is attested in both the western (Chania and Rethymnon) and eastern parts (Siteia) of the island, and it has two basic meanings. The first is a narrow and rather steep stream bed in a mountainous location (sometimes a gorge), which can be as steep as a cliff, and in which even goats may become trapped and unable to move (Maurakakis 1947, 39; Xanthidakis 2001, 282; Christaki 2009, 35). The word also is used with this meaning at Sianna on Rhodes. The second definition refers to a small one-room house with a fireplace situated in a mountainous area, usually a wine-pressing building, where shepherds and passing individuals shelter; it also may be associated with a place where animals find refuge. The word leska, or its plural form leskes, also is attested in local poems and rizitika (ριζίτικα) songs from Crete such as the three examples below: Αγρίμια κι αγριμάκια μου λάφια μου μερωμένα, πέστε μου πού 'ναι οι τόποι σας, πού 'ναι τα χειμαδιά σας; Γκρεμνά 'ναι εμάς οι τόποι μας, λέσκες τα χειμαδιά μας, τα σπηλιαράκια του βουνού είναι τα γονικά μας.

4

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Στου Κουστογεράκου το πέρασμα, ένας αγριμολόγος. Λέσκα από λέσκα, ξέτρεχε, τ’ αγρίμια να σκοτώσει. Γιατί ‘ναι σε χαροκοπιά, συντέκνου καλεσμένος θέλει κανίσκι να βαστά . . . Έχεις και λέσκες και σπηλιές, πανίδα και χλωρίδα τέτοια μεγάλη ομορφιά λίγες φορές την είδα.

In the case of Kythera, leska is used as a placename, and the same applies as well in some cases in Crete. The eastern part of the Leska peak on Kythera, which is visible from the broader lowland area of Mylopotamos, is the most prominent. Its dominant role is emphasized by its steepness, more pronounced than that of the Mermigkari peak, and by the presence of exposed bedrock outcrops forming limestone cliffs, especially on its upper part. It is highly possible that these characteristics are the main reason for the name attributed to this peak, a Cretan word that describes the steepness of an “almost-cliff.” The use of the Cretan dialect on Kythera has been known since at least the Medieval and Venetian periods, and it survived there until a few decades ago.

Archaeological Environment of Mt. Mermigkari Mount Mermigkari includes one of the oldest known archaeological sites of Kythera, the Katafy­ gadi Cave, located on the lowest peak of the same name. Richard Leonhard noted the presence of My­c­ enaean finds within this cave (1899, 15; Petrocheilos 1984, 63–64), while a century later Antonis Bartsiokas found both Minoan and Mycenaean artifacts as well as human remains there (Pl. 2A; Bartsiokas 1998, 33, figs. 70, 71). More recent work conducted in this cave suggests that the human bones were found in large numbers in the Minoan layer (Trandalidou et al. 2013–2015). Katafygadi may have been in use even earlier, because handmade mottled sherds were noted there, suggesting use during the Final Neolithic period (A. Tsaravopoulos, pers. comm., 12 September 2011). In the southwest lower slopes of the Mermigkari peak, a pithos burial was recovered close to the modern hamlet of

Lazarianika and dated to the MM III phase by Ioannis Petrocheilos (1984, 64), but Laura Preston prefers an earlier date (2007, 249). Thus, it is believed that a contemporary Minoan settlement existed in its proximity. A stone Minoan vessel was found on the slopes east of Mt. Mermigkari between Mylopotamos and Skoulantrianika, suggesting a Minoan presence on this part of the mountain as well (Tsaravopoulos 2012, 19). Finally, in the Strasigadika area, situated ca. 200.00 m southeast of Mylopotamos and on a high hill, prehistoric remains have been observed that may belong to the Minoan period (A. Tsaravopoulos, pers. comm., 12 September 2011). Thus, apart from the limited Final Neolithic/ Early Helladic evidence, most of the finds suggest denser use during the Minoan period, possibly already established during the Protopalatial phase (MM IB–II), which was considerably expanded in the Neopalatial period (MM III–LM I).

Geology and Climate Kythera is considered a southern geological extension of the Parnon mountain range in eastern Laconia (Theodoropoulos 1973, 43). The island can be roughly divided geologically into two regions, the central and southern region and the northern. In the former, the Tripolis Zone, which consists of limestone and dolomite, is attested mainly in the mountainous ranges on the east and west parts of the island (Anderson 1972, 29; Theodoropoulos 1973, 17; Bartsiokas 1998, 18; Danamos 2003, 23; Xypolias, Dörr, and Zulauf 2006, 540). In the center of the island is the Olonos-Pindos Zone, which contains limestone and flysch as well as sandstones and marl (Anderson 1972, 29; Theodoropoulos 1973, 22; Bartsiokas 1998, 18; Danamos 2003, 23). The latter region, located in the area of Potamos and extending to the north end of the island, is metamorphic in character, consisting mainly of phyllites, quartzites, and conglomerates (Theodoropoulos 1973, 13; Petrocheilos 1984, 36; Bartsiokas 1998, 17–18; Danamos 2003, 23; Xypolias et al. 2006, 540; Marsellos and Kidd 2008, 640). The oldest geological substratum on Kythera consists of marble and is located in the north under the Phyllites-Quartzites layer, with limited outcrops near Potamos (Bartsiokas 1998, 17).

INTRODUCTION

Kythera, like all Aegean islands, has a classic semiarid Mediterranean climate (Bevan and Conolly 2003–2004, 123). The average annual temperature of the island is close to 18°C, and its average humidity is 67%, which slightly fluctuates due to the proximity of the sea (Theodoropoulos 1973, 67, 73). The average annual rainfall is 775.00 mm, with most rains occurring between September and May, while during the rest of the year the climate is more arid (Stathis 1923, 178; Theodoropoulos 1973, 66, 73; Bevan and Conolly 2013, 26). During the summer months there often is no rain at all, and it is relatively common that these arid months include September as well. In a period of collected data spanning 30 years, a seven-year period (1975–1981) of low precipitation was noted, suggesting a relatively long period of drought with an average of ca. 500.00 mm of rain (Theodoropoulos 1973, 66, 73). Clouds appear more frequently from October until May, with cloud coverage of at least one-third to one-half of the sky. At the same time, the average cloud coverage per annum is 3.24 oktas (Theodoropoulos 1973, 73, pl. 1). Kythera is one of the windiest islands of the Aegean, with powerful northeastern winds during most of the year, apart from in May and June when western winds predominate (Theodoropoulos 1973, 69, 72; Petrocheilos 1984, 38; Sakellarakis 2011, 4; Bevan and Conolly 2013, 31–32). Detailed wind measurements have shown that west Kythera is affected mainly by western winds and east Kythera by northern and northeastern (Kourkoumelis 2011, 84, table 7). It is worth mentioning that the percentage of wind power annually, with speeds measuring 8+ on the Beaufort scale and in rare occasions reaching 10, is almost 3% (Theodoropoulos 1973, 74, pl. 2).

A Narrative of Early Bronze to Late Bronze I Kythera In this section, the Early Bronze to early Late Bronze phases on Kythera will be discussed, presenting the available data and the hypotheses considered currently most plausible. Early Helladic/Early Minoan The Early Helladic period is one of the most diagnostic on Kythera, with a large number of sites

5

identified by the two surveys performed there, the Kythera Island Project (KIP) and the Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey (APKAS), as well as by the discovery of chance finds (Coldstream 1973, 34; Petrocheilos 1984, 105; Broodbank 1999, 209–210; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 260; Paspalas and Gregory 2009, 554– 555, 557–558, fig. 3). In the KIP survey, occupation in this phase is demonstrated by 37 identified sites and possibly 16 more with limited Early Helladic finds (Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 260). More than half of the identified FN–EH I sites continue into the EH II phase, and their size varies between 0.10 and 0.40 ha, representing farmsteads and/or hamlets (Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 260). The sites are found on coastal, peninsular, inland, and hilly landscape settings across the island, with a preference for inland locations in the northern part of the island (Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 149; Petrocheilos 1984, 105–106; Tsaravopoulos 2009, 563). The use of caves is also evident in this phase, continuing earlier practices at the Hagia Sofia Cave in the north near Mylopotamos, the cave of Hagia Sofia of Kalamos in the south, and the Chousti Cave in the east (Tsaravopoulos 1999, 265; 2009, 563). Kyrou’s observation, however, that the caves are the main sites of occupation between the 5th and 3rd millennium b.c., cannot be substantiated by the available evidence (2003, 51). The vast majority of the diagnostic pottery from these sites represents the EH I and II phases, and it belongs stylistically to the mainland Greek tradition, influenced by the neighboring southern Peloponnese. In fact, the main source for the clay fabric is the northern part of Kythera (Kiriatzi 2003, 127; Broodbank and Kiriatzi, 2007, 250). Special reference should be made to Kastri, a site on Kythera that was already occupied in EH I, if not earlier (Pl. 2B). It seems that initially the promontory of Kastraki, situated a few hundred meters east of the coast, was inhabited, as EH I–II pottery of mainland influence was produced there (Huxley 1965, 179; Coldstream 1972b, 272–274; 1973, 34; Coldstream and Huxley 1984, 107; Kiriatzi 2003, 125; Broodbank and Kiriatzi, 2007, 242). Nevertheless, in EH II Kastri was occupied for the first time, and pottery with new characteristics (i.e., fabrics, shapes, styles, and techniques) belonging to the Central and West Cretan EM IIB tradition was used, up until the MM IA phase (Waterhouse and

6

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Hope Simpson 1961, 157; Coldstream 1972b, 275– 278; 1973, 34–35; Petrocheilos 1984, 105; Kiriatzi 2003, 125, 129; 2010, 690–691; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 253, 255). The appearance of this new distinct pottery type with Minoanizing character has been connected with the arrival of a new population from Crete, including potters and consumers of this pottery style (Coldstream and Huxley 1984, 107; Sakellarakis 2003, 25; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 256; Kiriatzi 2010, 692). The distribution of this new type is attested only at Kastri during the EM II phase, while the clay used is found in centraleast Kythera, not far from this site (Kiriatzi 2003, 129; 2010, 691; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 261). A few EM III–MM IA sherds of this type, however, have been found mainly in the northwest inland area near Kastri (Coldstream 1973, 35; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 261). There, in the coastal area close to Kastri and the eastern Mitata Valley, sites have no earlier EH II horizon but rather limited evidence of this phase, perhaps indicating the arrival of more Cretan people either directly from Crete or from the expansion of Kastri (Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 261–262). The presence of ribbed jars in this phase also may indicate the adoption of pithos burials, like those from contemporary Crete related to cave burials (Coldstream 1978, 390; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 264; Preston 2007, 243, 248). Explanations for Cretan interest in Kythera are twofold: on the one hand are the resources available on the island or the regions located close to it, and on the other is its location in relation to the sea routes that led to the exploitation of resources elsewhere, such as Lavrion and the Cyclades (Sakellarakis 2003, 32–33; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 266–267; Kiriatzi 2010, 698). Middle Minoan IB to Middle Minoan II (Protopalatial Period) In this period, the Minoanized character of the finds continues at Kastri (Huxley 1965, 179; 1966, 160; Coldstream 1972b, 278–280; Coldstream and Huxley 1984, 107). The pottery in this phase is similar to the previous, while Mudstone ware appears, which was also made in central-east Kythera (Kiriatzi 2003, 125, 127; 2010, 692). New techniques contemporary to those employed in Crete were utilized on Kythera, such as coiling and the use of the wheel (Kiriatzi 2010, 692). Beyond

this central settlement, there are rather few sites, and the settlement pattern appears to be poor during this phase (Petrocheilos 1984, 106; Bevan 2002, 225). Possible Protopalatial sites exist in the northern part of the island, such as Ammoutses, Vythoulas, Hagios Athanasios, North Paliochora, South Paliochora, and possibly Hagios Georgios Kolokythas (Paspalas and Gregory 2009, 554–555, fig. 3). In the southern part of the island, a terrace wall was built at this time in Livadi to avoid soil erosion, suggesting exploitation in this area, as the radiocarbon dating and excavated deposits also argue (Krahtopoulou and Frederick 2008, 575). In the same phase, MM I(A)–II, it seems that Hagios Georgios sto Vouno was established as a peak sanctuary, as suggested by the limited early finds (Sakellarakis 1996, 87; Tournavitou 2000, 298; 2009, 214). The pithos grave on the southwest slopes of Mt. Mermigkari close to Lazarianika may belong to this phase or slightly later (Petrocheilos 1984, 64; Preston 2007, 249). Furthermore, to this phase belongs the Babylonian inscriptionof Naram-Sin of Akkad, a dedication to a deity recovered from an unknown location on the island; Naram-Sin reigned between 1830 and 1813 b.c. (Tsitsilias 1993, 19–21; Sakellarakis 2003, 28; Huxley 2012, 13). Middle Minoan III to Late Minoan I (Neopalatial Period) The Minoanized material from this period was evident already in the first archaeological report from Kythera (Benton 1931–1932, 245–246). The pottery at Kastri appears to follow Knossian trends during LM IA, while in the subsequent LM IB phase more similarities exist with Chania (Coldstream and Huxley 1984, 108, 110). In this period, a new coarse ware fabric that originated in the Potamos area, Red Micaceous ware, was introduced at Kastri (Coldstream 1972b, 279–303; Kiriatzi 2003, 125–126, 127; 2010, 693). Additionally, there is a rather wide dispersal of sites across the KIP and APKAS survey areas at this time, a phenomenon believed to have existed across the entire island (Broodbank 1999, 212–213; Bevan 2002, 218; Coroneos et al. 2002; Broodbank, Kiriatzi, and Rutter 2005, 87; Krahtopoulou and Frederick 2008, 580; Paspalas and Gregory 2009, 554–555, 557–558, fig. 3, chart 1). Single- and/or multi-chambered tombs appeared in large numbers at Kastri and across Kythera

INTRODUCTION

during the MM III–LM I period, following a Cretan trend (Pl. 3A; Stai 1915; Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 149–150, fig. 17b; Huxley 1965; Huxley, Trik, and Coldstream 1972, 220–227; Coldstream 1972c; 1978, 390; Petrocheilos 1984, 106–107; Onasoglou 1990; Tsaravopoulos 1997, 106; 2009, 564–565; Bevan et al. 2002; Preston 2007, 243, 252). Apart from these, a few extramural and intramural single graves have also been recovered (Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 153; Huxley, Trik, and Coldstream 1972, 227; Coldstream 1972c 258, nos. 1, 2; Preston 2007, 240, 243, 249). There is standardization in the pottery deposited within the tombs, but it differs from contemporary pottery at Knossos where no skeuomorphism, which is seen in the Kytherian pottery, is attested (skeumorphism is the copying of an object’s shape in a different material than the original; see below, pp. 84–85). At Knossos, wooden and/or clay larnakes were used extensively, which are lacking on Kythera (Coldstream 1978, 392; Preston 2007, 250, 252). Sites on Kythera in this period usually vary between 0.10 and 0.30 ha in size, representing one or two farmsteads, and they are situated in close proximity to each other (ca. 200.00–300.00 m apart); in only one case in central-east Kythera is there a site larger than 1.00 ha (Bevan 2002, 221– 222, 226–227; Krahtopoulou and Frederick 2008, 580). The colonization of the landscape appears to be a Neopalatial phenomenon on Kythera, unlike in Crete where it had taken place mainly during the Pre- and Protopalatial phases (Driessen 2001b, 56; Bevan 2002, 225). A terrace wall in the area of Palaiopolis, located roughly east of Mylopotamos, suggests that it was constructed during the early Neopalatial period (Krahtopoulou and Frederick 2008, 567–568). Terracing was also practiced in this period at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno in order to regulate the accessibility of the sanctuary (Sakellarakis 2011, 333, 336). It is interesting to note the lack of villas similar to those in Crete on Kythera, and the short duration of the period of settlement may explain why there was no development of a hierarchical system (Bevan 2002, 225–226). Also, it is notable that a similar settlement pattern to that of Kythera has been observed on the island of Karpathos, which was a similar size and was under Cretan cultural influence during the Neopalatial phase (Georgiadis 2015).

7

Also during the Neopalatial period, the Hagia Sofia Cave at Kalamos may have been used as a cultic site (Benton 1931–1932, 245; Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 151; Coldstream and Huxley 1984, 108). The same has been proposed for the Katafygadi Cave on Mt. Mermigkari, but there is no definite evidence for this hypothesis (Broodbank, Kiriatzi, and Rutter 2005, 89; Tsaravopoulos 2009, 564). Hagios Georgios sto Vouno developed into a major sanctuary during this phase, with bronze offerings as well as semiprecious stone items deposited there as offerings (Pl. 3B; Sakellarakis 1996, 84–86; 2003, 31–33; Banou 2000; 2003; 2007). Furthermore, an inscription in Linear A was found on a steatite lamp, perhaps providing the name of a deity, da-ma-te, possibly Demeter (Sakellarakis and Olivier 1994; Sakellarakis 1996, 83–84; 2003, 32). Analyses on pieces of bronze from Kastri have demonstrated that the raw material came from outside the island (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007). Moreover, pieces of ingot found near Hagios Georgios sto Vouno suggest the way their raw materials were imported, with parallels attested only at Kea (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007, 235). From the Neopalatial sites in central-east Kythera, none produced evidence for the manufacture of these bronze objects, while examples from the peak sanctuary are considered to be votive offerings rather than evidence for onsite production (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007, 235–236). The Minoan character of Kastri, as well as the local pottery tradition, the burial customs, and the presence of a peak sanctuary and possibly also sacred caves, is the main reason why Kythera has played a prominent role in discussions on Minoan colonization and Minoanization (Branigan 1981; Broodbank 2004). This framework includes the hypothesis of Knossian control over Kastri, which insinuates that the same happened for the entire island (Banou 2007, 288). Here, the impetus for this control was access to Laconia, with its rich bronze resources and semiprecious stones such as lapis lacedaemonius and rosso antico (Banou 2007, 288–289). The LM II period remains elusive on Kythera, since no stratum at Kastri or chamber tomb clearly belongs to this phase (Coldstream 1972b, 303– 304). The finds from this period are stray and seem

8

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

to suggest that the main character of the island remained Minoanized (Benton 1931–1932, 245; Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 157; Huxley 1965). Some limited finds of this phase have been tentatively reported from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Sakellarakis 1996, 88; Banou 2003, 69; Broodbank, Kiriatzi, and Rutter 2005, 89, contra Tournavitou 2009, 215). Renewed excavations conducted by Emilia Banou of the University of the Peloponnese will shed more light about its chronology and provide additional information on the activities performed at this peak sanctuary.

Peak Sanctuaries and the Minoan Religion In this section, the character of peak sanctuaries and the broader Minoan religion will be presented. These cultic aspects are more numerous and better studied in Crete, but in reality they affected the entire contemporary Aegean.

What We Know about Peak Sanctuaries During the Middle Minoan and Late Minoan periods in Crete, there were both sanctuaries within settlements and in extra-settlement locations (Gesell 1985; Rutkowski 1986). The peak sanctuary is perhaps the most emblematic extra-settlement sanctuary type of Minoan Crete. There are a large number of studies related only to these sanctuaries and even more that discuss them in a wider social, economic, political, and/or religious context. Although a number of peak sanctuaries have been recognized, after more than a century of research they are not as well understood as we would expect. Most are known by simple visits and unsystematic surveys, some have been partially excavated, and just a few have been excavated to a larger extent or published. The available data is often irregular, making it difficult to treat peak sanctuaries as a distinct type of sacred space or in relation to other types of sanctuaries and thus also to understand their role in wider sociopolitical developments. Although sacred caves are different in topographic setting, their extra-settlement character

has made several scholars treat them in association with peak sanctuaries. This tendency has been seen since Arthur Evans (1921–1935, I), and it has continued in both general presentations of Minoan religion (Nilsson 1950; Rutkowski 1986) as well as in more specialized extra-settlement religious studies (Faure 1963; 1965; 1967; 1969; Rutkowski 1994; Watrous 1996; Jones 1999; Nowicki 2007a, 577). All extra-settlement sanctuaries seem to be well situated in the landscape and related to particular elements such as streams, springs, the sea, and agricultural and pastoral lands (Nixon 2009, 271). Most researchers follow the criteria set by Alan Peatfield (1987), who suggested that the number of peak sanctuaries in Crete was no more than 20–25. More recently, scholars have suggested the presence of more than 45 using Peatfield’s standards (Nowicki 2007b; 2013; 2016–2017, fig. 1; 2019; Davaras 2010). Even though Peatfield’s criteria have been generally accepted and applied, there is no consensus on the specific number or the precise sanctuaries included in this category (Jones 1999; Kyriakidis 2005a; Nowicki 2007b; Davaras 2010). Additionally, the study of the peak sanctuary as its own category is somewhat problematic (Nowicki 2007a, 577), something that also applies to sacred caves and other sanctuary types of urban and extra-settlement character. It prevents us from appreciating sanctuaries within their cultic and non-cultic contexts, which usually consists of a number of sites forming a more complex image. This observation does not mean, however, that peak sanctuaries did not have a character of their own. Each peak sanctuary had a different diachronic development, which will be discussed below, but at the same time they shared a number of similarities since they formed an integral and interrelated part of the Minoan religion.

Formation of Peak Sanctuaries A predecessor of peak sanctuaries, known as the hilltop with cultic character, is proposed by some to have appeared in the FN/EM I and EM II periods (Nowicki 1994, 37, 40; 2001, 32–36; Branigan 1994; 1998, 58, 81; Watrous 1995, 393–394; Manning 2008, 109). The earliest examples of actual peak sanctuaries have been recognized at FN/EM I Atsipades, FN/EM I Traostalos, and EM II Juktas (Peatfield 1990, 125; 1992, 71–72; 1994a, 23; 1994b,

INTRODUCTION

91; 2013, 476; Morris and Peatfield 1995, 644; 2014, 55). Nevertheless, the FN–EM II finds in these sites cannot be called cultic in character, thus causing doubts on such an early date (Watrous 1995, 394; 1996, 73; Nowicki 2016–2017, 8–10). A broader consensus exists in the identification of the earliest appearance of peak sanctuaries in EM III and more broadly from the MM I(A) phase onward (Platon 1951, 158; Branigan 1970, 103; Rutkowski 1986, 12, 94; Peatfield 1987, 90; 1990, 125; 1994a, 23; Nowicki 1994, 40; 2001, 31; 2007b, 1–2; 2016–2017, 10; Watrous 1995, 394; Haggis 1999, 73– 75; Jones 1999, 35; Faro 2008, 95; Morris and Peatfield 2014). This chronology means that they were established in the latest Prepalatial phase in Crete, thus arguing for a partly parallel development along with the palaces (Marinatos 1993, 116; Nowicki 2007b, 1–2, contra Cherry 1986, 29–31). It has been proposed, however, that Knossos already acted as an urban center during the EM II–MM IA phase (Tomkins 2012, 72–75), and the same is thought for the palaces of Malia and Phaistos as early as EM III– MM IA (Schoep and Tomkins 2012, 8–9; Todaro 2012, 227). This hypothesis has serious implications for the origin, date, and interrelation of peak sanctuaries and urban/palatial centers, especially Knossos-Juktas. A hypothesis has been put forward that Juktas was the earliest and most dominant peak sanctuary from which the rest were influenced (Nowicki 2016–2017, 10). David Blackman and Keith Branigan, among others, have proposed a theory that peak sanctuaries originated in the cults of Early Minoan tholos tombs (1977, 82; Peatfield 1987, 90; 1990, 123–124; Georgoulaki 2002, 22). The fact that the finds from the peak sanctuaries of this period are very close in character to the offerings in Early Minoan tombs supports this hypothesis (Jones 1999, 35–36). An ex oriente stimulus is favored by other scholars, in particular from either Egypt or the Near East (Watrous 1995, 395, 398; Nowicki 2019). More broadly in Crete, the increased socioeconomic importance of pastoralism and transhumance is proposed for EM III–MM I in order to explain the appearance of the peak sanctuaries (Rutkowski 1971, 16–17; 1986, 94; Peatfield 1983, 273; 1987, 92; 1990, 126; Jones 1999, 29; Reid 2007, 99). Their role in surveillance over territories and as meeting points for local elites, where the unification or socio-cultural homogenization of some villages may have taken place, also

9

has been posited (Kyriakidis 2005a, 113–114; Manning 2008, 109). In this context, Donald Haggis has proposed that local elites could have controlled regional agro-pastoral production through religion and a common ideological system (1999, 77–79).

Cretan Peak Sanctuaries The growth of more than 45 peak sanctuaries occurred in Protopalatial Crete, some already established across the island in the MM IB–II phase (Rutkowski 1986, 12; Peatfield 1994a, 23; Nowicki 2007b, 10–13; 2016–2017, fig. 1). The settlements that controlled these sanctuaries had an important role in local political competition, and in some cases this role is seen in the quality and quantity of their offerings (Kyriakidis 2005a, 114– 115). For John Cherry it is the emerging elites of the palatial society, which appeared in this period in Crete, who influenced the spread and use of peak sanctuaries (1986, 30–31). On the local level, however, peak sanctuaries brought together people from different and dispersed settlements. This common point of reference and ritual created new social bonds and cohesion among the population, providing regional identities (Peatfield 1994a, 25; Kyriakidis 2005a, 117–118). The peak sanctuaries in this phase in Crete have been divided into regional (e.g., Juktas, Kophinas, and Vrysinas) and rural (e.g., Atsipades and Sfaka Korakomouri; Peatfield 1992, 59; Watrous 1994, 732; Tzedakis, Chryssoulaki, and Vokotopoulos 1999, 324; Nowicki 2007b, 3). Differences exist in the quantity, quality, and diversity of offerings found in these two types. During this period, from MM IA late or IB onward, the first sacred caves also appeared mainly in Central Crete, rather than in the whole island (Watrous 1996, 74–75; Tyree 2001, 40; 2006, 334). In the same phase, possibly as early as MM I, other important extra-settlement sanctuaries called sacred enclosures also appeared, such as those at Kato Syme and Stous Athropolithous (Brown and Peatfield 1987, 31; Lebessi 2009, 522). A dramatic decrease in the number of peak sanctuaries can be seen with the introduction of the Neopalatial period (MM IIIB–LM I): from almost 45 down to just more than 10 in Crete, all of which had a Protopalatial background. Xykefalo was used only during the MM III period and no later, Hagia

10

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Kyriaki Gremnakas possibly in the same phase, Liliano possibly in MM III–LM IA early, and Kophinas and Vrysinas in MM III–LM IA, while the rest (i.e., Petsophas, Traostalos, Ziros Korphi tou Mare, Prinias, Filioremos, and possibly Modi and Pyrgos) were used during the broader MM III– LM I(B) phase, with only Juktas continuing until the Subminoan phase (Platon 1951, 120, 146, 158– 159; Davaras 1981, 90; Karetsou 1981, 145; Rutkwoski 1986, 79, 87; 1991, 16, 20; Peatfied 1990, 127; 1994a, 23; Karetsou and Rethemiotakis 1991–1993, 289–290; Driessen and MacDonald 1997, 29–31, 33, 55, 210; Chryssoulaki 1999, 311; Jones 1999, table 10; Tzachili 2003, 330; Adams 2004, 27; Kyriakidis 2005a, 102–103; Nowicki 2007b, 12; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2010, 454). This reduction in peak sanctuaries is more evident in East and CentralWest Crete rather than in Central Crete where the numbers remain almost stable (Soetens et al. 2002, 162; Nowicki 2012). All the sanctuaries that ceased to be used have been described as rural peak sanctuaries. It is of particular interest that in the Neopalatial phase new sacred caves appeared, and overall their numbers increased, unlike the peak sanctuaries (Watrous 1996, 97). The phenomenon of the decrease in peak sanctuaries is thought to be closely related to political, economic, and social developments that took place in Crete during the Neopalatial period. Centralization is proposed, followed by an increased importance attributed to these sanctuaries (Peatfield 1987, 93; 1990, 127; 1994a, 21). The elites of this time appropriated the Protopalatial peak sanctuary cults in order to increase their prestige, their social position, and ultimately their political power (Peatfield 1990, 130). Thus, the regional identities already established around peak sanctuaries by the Protopalatial period, and in fact those of every extra-settlement sanctuary, were used in order to incorporate these groups of people into wider sociopolitical units. At the same time, it has been proposed that the peak sanctuaries became institutionalized, and that at least some of these sites had been directly controlled by contemporary palaces since MM III (Peatfield 1987, 92; Nowicki 1994, 41; Jones 1999, 29; Driessen 2001a, 364; Kyriakidis 2005a, 117, 125; Younger and Rehak 2008, 166). This institutionalization and accumulation of wealth at the peak sanctuaries during the Neopalatial phase suggest an increase in the power these sites had in Minoan society (Kyriakidis

2005a, 125). Thus, it is not surprising that the palatial centers controlled these sanctuaries to a certain extent during this period. The presence of priests during performed rituals in order to ensure the physical control of these sanctuaries by the palaces has been proposed already from the MM III phase (Jones 1999, 26, 30). This direct link between peak sanctuaries and palaces has been proposed based on the iconographic representation of peak sanctuaries found at palaces, the discovery of the same cultic apparatus, and the presence of Linear A at both types of site (Cherry 1986, 31; Peatfield 1987, 89–90; 1990, 127; Faro 2008, 123). Regarding the politicaleconomic conditions of Minoan society at the time, there are two theories: one favors a centralization of power and economy centered at the palaces (Cherry 1986, 31; Peatfield 1990, 127), and the other its diffusion from palaces to villas and other administrative centers (Kyriakidis 2005a, 117). The data from the peak sanctuaries can be divided into three main categories, topography, material culture, and iconography: Topography Peak sanctuaries are located on the summits and slopes of prominent hills and mountains. The localities of the actual sanctuaries often include natural terraces, proximity to cliffs, fissures, exposed bedrock, spectacular rock formations, and even a chasm in the cases of Juktas, the Kophinas shrine, Pyrgos, and the hollow at Petsophas (Karetsou 1976, 417; 1978, 251; 1981, 141; Rutkowski 1991, 13, 20; Bradley 2000, 101; Nowicki 2007b, 5, 24; 2016– 2017, 15; Soetens 2009, 262–263 n. 12; Sakellarakis 2013, 20). Geologically, these sites are found in limestone and/or dolomite environments of the Triassic and Jurassic phases (ca. 250–145 mya), in broadleaved evergreen regions with no woods (Rutkowski 1986, 73; Soetens, Sarris, and Toupouzi 2006, 321). The altitudes in which they are found ranges from >200.00 to 1,780.00 m asl (Rutkowski 1971, 15–16; 1986, 73–74; 1991, 13; Peatfield 1983, 274; 2007, 297; 2009, 253; Castleden 1993, 54; Watrous and Blitzer 1999, 907; Nowicki 2007b, 5, 28; Reid 2007, 83; Davaras 2010, 73; Sakellarakis 2013, 123; Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 252), with half of the sanctuaries situated between 700.00 and 900.00 m asl (Soetens, Sarris, and Toupouzi 2006, 320). These

INTRODUCTION

altitudes suggest that peak sanctuaries were placed in three different ecological zones, the lowest with the evergreens at 0.00–350.00 m asl, the next between 350.00 and 650.00 m asl, where oak wood is found, and the highest at 650.00–1,500.00 m asl, with some evergreen shrubs and where snow falls in some occasions during winter (Rutkowski 1986, 73–74; Castleden 1993, 54; Reid 2007, 83). Gyristi is so far the only known peak sanctuary in Crete recovered in the alpine mountainous zone (Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 252). The area of a peak sanctuary is usually small, rarely more than 600.00 m², with Vrysinas being just below 0.20 ha and Juktas considerably larger (Platon and Davaras 1961–1962, 287; Rutkowski 1986, 73; Peatfield 1992, 66; Tzachili 2003, 329; Rethemiotakis 2001–2004, 341; Nowicki 2007b, 5, 23; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2011, 296). There are cases where they are located on the summit, or even on two summits like at Pyrgos (Rutkowski 1991, 21). Some peak sanctuaries are not found on the highest peak of their respective mountain or hill, but rather on a lower one, like at Atsipades, Kophinas, Prinias, and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, where prominence is preferred (Davaras 1972, 47; 2010, 72–73; Peatfield 1990, 119; 1992, 62–63; 2009, 253; Nowicki 2016–2017, 17). It seems that their locations were chosen with commanding visibility over the lowland in mind, mainly the settlements from whence the worshippers came and vice-versa (Peatfield 1990, 119; 1992, 60; 1994a, 23; 2007, 297; 2009, 253; Kyriakidis 2005a, 51; Moss 2005, 95; Davaras 2010, 72; Sakellarakis 2013, 10, 113, 123 Nowicki 2016–2017, 15, contra Cunningham and Driessen 2004, 109). Steven Soetens calls the view from these locations panoramic, with 360° visibility (2009, 263), aside from a few exceptions such as Atsipades and Vorizi. Peak sanctuaries were closely associated with relative proximity and access to settlements and/or exploitation areas, as opposed to within the high mountains of Crete, and they were located within radii of up to two hours of walking, and in a few up to four (Peatfield 1983, 275; 1992, 60; 1994a, 23; 2007, 297; 2009, 253; Rutkowski 1991, 17; Moss 2005, 95; Nowicki 2007b, 24; 2016–2017, 17; Reid 2007, 83; Davaras 2010, 73; Morris and Peatfield 2014, 54– 55). There is limited intervisibility between palatial centers and peak sanctuaries, however, with Knossos-Juktas being an exception (Reid 2007, 85,

11

fig. III.7.i). There is also intervisibility between individual peak sanctuaries during this phase (Peatfield 1983, 276; 1990, 119; 1992, 60; 2007, 297; 2009, 253; Moss 2005, 95; Reid 2007, 87, fig. III.7.ii; Davaras 2010, 73; Morris and Peatfield 2014, 55; Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 252). The interpretation of the association between palatial centers and peak sanctuaries is open for debate, however, with Peatfield arguing for it symbolizing ritual unity between the two locations (1994a, 25). Soetens and colleagues have proposed the nonhierarchical symbolic unification of religious practices through intervisibility in eastern Crete during the Protopalatial period (Soetens, Driessen, and Toupouzi 2002, 164–166; Soetens et al. 2003, 485; Soetens, Sarris, and Toupouzi 2006, 317–319). In general, the locations of the peak sanctuaries symbolize liminality, since the mountain tops are the closest points to the sky (Peatfield 1992, 75; Kyriakidis 2005a, 58). Neopalatial topographical analysis suggests that the political control of the palaces extended to the landscape of peak sanctuaries across the island, forming a stronger religious hierarchy of sites, with Juktas at its highest point (Soetens, Driessen, and Toupozi 2002, 166; Soetens, Sarris, and Toupouzi 2006, 321–322). Apart from the natural topography, there is the anthropogenic landscape, mainly formed through the building of different types of structures already from the Protopalatial period (Alexiou 1966, 322; Karetsou 1980, 337–338, 351–353; Rutkowski 1986, 76; Kyriakidis 2005a, 101–103; Peatfield 2013, 478). However, the erection of buildings became a prominent feature from MM III onward at the majority of these sites, particularly at Petsophas, Traostalos, Juktas, Pyrgos, Filioremos, Vrysinas, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, the Kophinas shrine, and perhaps Maza and Modi (Rutkowski 1986, 79–81; Peatfield 1987, 92; 1990, 122; 1994a, 22; Karetsou and Rethemiotakis 1990, 429; Kyriakidis 2005a, 101–103, 167–168; Sakellarakis 2011, 333, 336; 2013, 12–14; Spiliotopoulou 2014, 163). In particular, some of the rooms identified at Juktas had painted frescos with linear motifs, suggesting how elaborate this sanctuary had been (Karetsou 1980, 351). These building programs seem to be associated with centralization, and they underline the close relation of peak sanctuaries to, if not their economic dependence upon, administrative and/or palatial centers (Rutkowski 1971, 18; Peatfield 1990, 127; 1994a

12

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

21). The control of access and inclusion or exclusion is achieved in all of these buildings (Bradley 2000, 104, 158; Kyriakidis 2005a, 83), not unlike the situation of the sanctuaries located within palaces. At the same time, workshop production may have taken place in some of the peak sanctuaries, for example at Juktas, Karphi, Traostalos, Atsipades, and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, which may have been an institution of its own with control over resources, production, and distribution, as Banou (2000, 388) implies and Evangellos Kyriakidis (2001; 2005a, 107, 109–110) forcefully argues. The erection of structures and workshop production emphasize the accumulation of social, political, and religious power by some of the peak sanctuaries during the Neopalatial Period. Material Culture The commonest and most diagnostic offerings found at peak sanctuaries are clay figurines of humans (men and/or women), votive limbs (parts of the human body), and animals (domestic and/ or wild), and clay models of houses or sanctuaries and landscapes (Dietrich 1969, 259; Branigan 1970, 106; Rutkowski 1986, 85–87; Peatfield 1992, 59; Schoep 1994a, 190–194; Kyriakidis 2005a, 149– 164, table 24; Reid 2007, 90–92; Davaras 2010, 74; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011, 212; Sakellarakis 2011, 335–336; Morris and Peatfield 2014, 55). Less common types include boats, horns of consecration, and clay balls (Myres 1902–1903, 378–380; Watrous 1995, 399; Chryssoulaki 2001, 62; Kyriakidis 2005a, 80, 91, 152 158–160, 163–168; Reid 2007, 92; Davaras 2010, 74). For Peatfield, the presence of figurines is not considered an adequate criterion for the identification of a peak sanctuary (1990, 120; 2007, 297; 2009, 253), but their abundance also should be considered, stressing the importance of the latter as unique to peak sanctuaries. The human figurines are believed to represent worshippers rather than the deity (Peatfield 1990, 121), and along with the votive limbs and domestic animals, most commonly bovines, they represent offerings for protection, fertility, prosperity, and the cure of illnesses (Platon 1951, 157; Rutkowski 1971, 9; 1986, 88; Peatfield 1983, 276; 1992, 59, 61; Arnott 1996, 267; Jones 1999, 33; Morris and Peatfield 2014, 56–62). A small but significant subgroup of human and animal figurines was made out of bronze (Kyriakidis 2005a, 149, 152–153, 156), a Neopalatial

phenomenon related to the attempts of local elites to socially differentiate themselves from the rest of the population (Nowicki 1994, 35). Pottery is the most abundant category of offering at peak sanctuaries, mainly in the form of vessels for food or drink consumption followed by pouring-libation, cooking, and some limited storage vessels, as well as some miniature (Rutkowski 1986, 87; Peatfield 1992, 70; 2001, 54; 2009, 252; Morris and Peatfield 1995, 645–646; Tzedakis, Chryssoulaki, and Vokotopoulos 1999, 323; Kyriakidis 2005a, 128, 133–136; Reid 2007, 92). The petrological origin of the pottery deposited at Vrysinas suggests that it came from a peripheral area within 20 km, where the workshops were located (Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2010, 455). The older belief that none or only a restricted amount of metal offerings were deposited in peak sanctuaries cannot be substantiated for any time period (Platon 1951, 150; Dietrich 1969, 268; Kyriakidis 2005a, 146–147). Metal items such as weapons, tools, and jewelry, however, are found in far larger numbers during the Neopalatial period, mainly in bronze but also in silver and gold (Davaras 1972, 48; Karetsou and Rethemiotakis 1991–1993, 291; Nowicki 1994, 41; Jones 1999, 47–50, tables 4, 5; Kyriakidis 2005a, 144–146, tables 19, 20). There also was an increased number of stone and/or clay offering tables and lamps deposited in most of the peak sanctuaries during the Neopalatial period. The most important aspect of these items is that some have Linear A inscriptions, suggesting a certain standardization and a stronger link between administrative centers and palaces and these sanctuaries, such as at Vrysinas, Juktas, Kophinas, Petsophas, and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Rutkowski 1986, 85; Peatfield 1990, 128; Sakellarakis and Olivier 1994, 345; Schoep 1994b, 9–12; Watrous 1996, 74; Jones 1999, 32; Kyriakidis 2005a, 80). The deposition of river or sea pebbles of various sizes is a custom already attested from the Neopalatial period onward (Nowicki 1994, 35–39; Kyriakidis 2005a, 143–144; Davaras 2010, 74). Bones, seeds, and shellfish have not been found in small/rural Protopalatial peak sanctuaries, but rather only in regional examples in uncertain chronological contexts (Kyriakidis 2005a, 129–130; Sakellarakis 2013, 88). No animal sacrifices occurred during the Protopalatial period in the peak sanctuaries, according to Nowicki (1994, 40–41; Karetsou 1976, 417),

INTRODUCTION

except at Juktas and Petsophas (Kyriakidis 2005a, 129). Initially the presence of pyres and evidence of fires within peak sanctuaries was put forward as a general phenomenon (Peatfiled 1983, 277; Sakellarakis 2013, 93–94), but it has been seriously questioned at least for the Prepalatial and Protopalatial periods (Nowicki 1994, 31–32; Morris and Peatfield 2014, 59). No food preparation appears to have taken place in the small or rural sanctuaries of this phase, suggesting that food was prepared elsewhere and brought ready-made (Peatfield 1992, 66, 70; Kyriakidis 2005a, 137; Nowicki 2007b, 24). The same applies to the contemporary regional sanctuary of Vrysinas, however, and thus it is not a matter of size or importance (Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2010, 453). Ashes and evidence of fire is found at some peak sanctuaries, possibly at those belonging mainly to the Neopalatial period (Peatfield 1992, 66; Jones 1999, 57–58, table 9; Kyriakidis 2005a, 136–137, table 11, contra Nowicki 1994, 35). Thus, Camilla Briault’s comment about there being no regional variation in the presence of fires, but rather a selective use of specific practices or rituals at particular locations, seems valid (2007b, 128). In general, there appears to have been a quantitative and qualitative increase in finds as well as more elaboration and variety during the Neopalatial period in comparison to the Protopalatial phase (Peatfield 1987, 92; Briault 2007a, 123). The intentional placement of offerings to the sanctuary in crevices and/or hollows of exposed bedrock is not always evident, contrary to original thinking, and the same applies to the deliberate breaking of pots (Platon 1951, 151; Sakellarakis 1970, 254; 2013, 106–113; Peatfield 1992, 67; Chryssoulaki 1999, 311; 2001, 64; Tzachili 2003, 327–328). Iconography The iconography commonly associated with peak sanctuaries is evident by the Neopalatial period, especially when it comes to the facades of structures and some of the beliefs and rituals practiced there (Rutkowski 1986, 81). Female or male deities are depicted in mountainous locales on sealings and rings from Poros, in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, and from the Tripartite Shrine and LM II levels at Knossos (Evans 1921–1935, II, 608, fig. 597:Ae; Whittaker 1997, 40; Sakellarakis 2013, 40–41, 44). The iconography on the Kato

13

Zakros rhyton is possibly the most explicit, wherein a mountainous terrain is depicted with no associated trees or humans (Platon 1968, 170, 192–193; 1971, 161–169). There is a peribolos that contains altars, one of which has branches as offerings, and a tripartite structure upon which horns of consecration and poles stand. Agrimia (goats) and birds are the only living creatures depicted, and both animals could have had a symbolic association with deities or epiphanies of a deity, especially agrimia with fertility idols (Cameron 1978, 582). The heraldic position of two agrimia at the center of this image, above the central building of the tripartite structure poles, is of particular interest: they flank a small peak that signifies the highest point of the mountain and the very center or axis of the scene. The schematic shape of the peak is further attested in the form of the back of the stone throne in the Throne Room at Knossos, there flanked by griffins and palm trees depicted in the fresco on the wall behind (Dietrich 1971, 519; Niemeier 1987, 163; Marinatos 2010, 67). A Neopalatial date is proposed for this room arrangement, and it is associated, according to Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, with rituals of epiphany (1987, 163, 165–166). Moreover, the shape of the back of the throne as well as the peak on the Kato Zakros rhyton often are related to baetyls (sacred stones) and epiphanies in iconography (Crooks 2013, 52–53). These representations suggest that in case of the Knossos throne there was a transfer of the peak sanctuary cult to the palatial context and therefore a close relationship between the two (Niemeier 1987, 166; Castleden 1990, 123, 125). This hypothesis is reinforced by the clear visibility between and symbolic association with the Great Court of the Knossos palace and Juktas. Also notable is a Neopalatial serpentinite rhyton from Gypsades near Knossos, preserved in two possibly joining pieces with two different scenes (Evans 1921–1935, II, 752, fig. II; Warren 1969, 175, P474, P476; Koehl 2006, 329). In one, a rocky mountain is depicted with a tripartite building on top, wherein a single man is placing a basket containing offerings onto a round shape. It seems that in this case a person placed his offering on a convenient natural feature located within the space of the sanctuary. At the same time, in the other scene a procession of two men holding large shallow bowls seems to start from the lowland and move toward the peak

14

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

sanctuary, like in the processional frescoes found at the palace of Knossos (Logue 2004, 155, fig. 3). A contemporary fresco from the north wall of Room 5 of the West House of Akrotiri shows a meeting of men on the summit of a hill, possibly a peak sanctuary (Warren 1979, 125; Morgan 1988, 91, 93– 96, 156–158, figs. 1, 122, 123, 125, 127; Sakellarakis 2013, 39). A possible peak sanctuary scene also is attested on the wall painting in Room 14 of Villa A at Hagia Triada, dated to the LM I period (Rehak 1997, 167, 173, fig. 4; Militelo 1998–1999, pl. 2; Sturmer 2001, pl. XVI:c). One of the panels depicts a mountain terrain with animals, arguing that the whole scene belongs to a mountainous setting and possibly a peak sanctuary. The iconography can inspire further inquiry into the theory that the (bed)rock symbolizes the deity, and also into its use as a natural, nonmovable baetyl during rituals of epiphany. The liminal position of the mountain peak, on the closest point to the sky, would have been suitable for summoning the deity through epiphany, making peak sanctuaries ideal for this ritual (Platon 1951, 156; Dietrich 1969, 262; Peatfield 1990, 120). In order to claim the role of a rock as a baetyl, however, two factors should be taken under consideration: the position of the rock (central?) and the artifacts found around it (Kyriakidis 2005a, 56–66). It should be stressed that baetyls and rituals of epiphany appear to be important elements of the Minoan religion in general (Warren 1988, 16, 18).

Peak Sanctuaries outside Crete Claims for the presence of peak sanctuaries outside Crete have been related to Minoan cultural influence in the Aegean islands and southern mainland Greece. It has been suggested that one existed, perhaps for a short period of time, on the peak of the Troullos hill on Kea, close to Hagia Eirene, where some clay figurines and sherds have been found (Caskey 1971, 392, 395; Sakellarakis 1996, 92–93; 2013, 155–156; Briault 2007a, 131). A similar proposal has been put forth for Mt. Filerimos on Rhodes, close to Trianda, with finds attested close to its summit (Benzi 1984, 100; Sakellarakis 1996, 93; 2013,

156–158). Toula Marketou argues that a peak sanctuary existed on the mountaintop during LM IA, but she doubts an earlier date for its establishment (2009, 73–76). A similar function has been attributed to the site of Mikri Vigla on Naxos, where clay figurines and Middle Minoan–Late Minoan sherds have been recovered (Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989 131–132; Sakellarakis 2013, 159–162). The limited quantity of finds from all these sites, however, has casted doubt on such interpretations. Nonetheless, the reservations about peak sanctuaries having existed outside Crete changed with the discovery of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, about which there is a consensus regarding its characterization as a peak sanctuary (Sakellarakis 1996, 2011). Its establishment during MM IA–II (Prepalatial/Protopalatial) and its use until the end of the Neopalatial period (LM IB) follows Cretan examples (Tournavitou 2014). The topographical characteristics of Leska, as well as the types of finds recovered there, reveal that it also shared similar elements with aforementioned Cretan examples. This fact has changed and expanded our understanding of this sanctuary type and addressed new questions regarding its role within its regional context. Another example of a peak sanctuary outside of Crete is Mt. Lykaion, located in southwest Arcadia, close to its borders with Elis and Messenia. There, a possibly sacrificial ash layer covered the summit of the mountain (1,382.00 m asl), containing prehistoric sherds and Mycenaean figurines (Romano and Voyatzis 2010, 11, 13; 2014, 579–581, 616–617). The earliest material found there can be placed in LH IIB, roughly contemporary with the rest of the southern Aegean examples (Starkovich et al. 2013; Romano and Voyatzis 2014, 584–612, 628). The existence of non-Cretan peak sanctuaries addresses the question of whether there was a parallel southern mainland Greek tradition, or if these sanctuaries were the outcome of Cretan influence amalgamated with local practices in conscious or unconscious ways. The chronology of Mt. Lykaion in particular argues that this mainland example post-dates the Neopalatial phase in Crete, and that the most likely scenario is the existence of Minoan cultural influence, either direct or indirect, at these locations.

INTRODUCTION

Broader Issues on Minoan and Aegean Religion Early scholars argue that only one deity was worshipped at the peak sanctuaries in toto, a so-called Great Goddess or a Goddess of Nature (Evans 1921–1935, I, 154; Nilsson 1950, 76; Platon 1951, 152–153; Rutkowski 1971, 9). Bogdan Rutkowski suggests that there was a goddess, to which in later times a male deity was added (1986, 91; Peatfield 1995, 218). One step further was the belief of one pan-Cretan peak sanctuary cult, proposed by Peatfield due to recognized ritual homogeneity (1987, 93; 1992, 61; 1994a, 21). Nonetheless, this theory has been questioned on the grounds of important variations identified between peak sanctuaries (Marinatos 1993, 147; Jones 1999; Kyriakidis 2005a). The similarities are important among these sanctuaries, but they do not necessarily suggest a homogeneous belief system, because different beliefs may coexist along with similar actions (Kyriakidis 2005a, 79–80, contra Dietrich 1969, 263–265). Nanno Marinatos was the first to argue that the same divinity was not worshipped at all of these sites, but rather a set of deities, which was different in each case (1993, 119; Dickinson 1994, 178; Watrous 1995, 399, 402; 1996, 96; Moss 2005, 95–148; Davaras 2010, 76). Rutkowski offers a short narrative based on previous observations of the rituals that were taking place at the peak sanctuaries (1986, 91; see also Platon 1951, 152–159). Ceremonies are believed to have occurred once or twice per annum, during which offerings were deposited, bonfires were lit, and sacrifices were made, followed by a feast that possibly included music and dance; some of the offerings also were thrown into the fire. Offerings of agricultural produce and libations also can be suggested (Marinatos 1993, 126), as well as rituals related to epiphany, at least in some cases (Platon 1951, 156; Dietrich 1969, 262; Rutkowski 1971, 9–10; Peatfield 1990, 120). Vance Watrous favors visits to peak sanctuaries only by groups on certain occasions, especially at sites that were between three and five hours away from settlements (1996, 91). These festivals, when congregation occurred, may have been related to dates meaningful for annual agricultural and pastoral cycles (Chryssoulaki 2001, 64). Visits

15

by individuals may have been related to a more personal need for communication with the deity. In that context, epiphany scenes appear to suggest that in the specific ritual depicted only one or two individuals participated, rather than it having taking place during larger group visitations. The character of religious rituals has been subdivided into two different categories by Peter Warren (1988, 12–13): those related to offerings and those with invocation. Rituals and practices like the epiphany were shared in different sanctuaries and cultic Minoan contexts. They have been identified always in open spaces and usually within settlement contexts starting in the Prepalatial period, like at EM III Vasiliki, Protopalatial Hagia Triada, Neopalatial Gournia, Malia, and Galatas, and later at Late Minoan and LH III Kefala Vasiliki and Phylakopi on Melos (La Rosa 2001, 221; Marinatos 2010, 88; Crooks 2013, 11–42). It is interesting to note that the material remains surrounding these sites emphasize the practice of libations (Crooks 2013, 53). Many scholars have associated libations with an ecstatic state of consciousness enhanced by alcohol, dancing, and/or other hallucinogenic substances or activities available in that time and space (La Rosa 2001, 221; Morris and Peatfield 2004, 41–43, 45–54). At the same time, other scholars do not agree with the ecstatic aspect of epiphany or other rituals within the Minoan religion (Marinatos 2010, 81, 87). Scenes of epiphany in glyptic art on gold rings, sealstones, and wall paintings have shown men and women on boulders or trees, and in some cases smaller figures appearing from the sky or in the background. These examples all belong in the MM III–LM I period and portray baetyls as round or oval boulders, sometimes occurring in pairs (Evans 1921–1935, IV, fig. 555; Militelo 1998–1999, pl. 2; Sturmer 2001, pl. XVI:c; Crooks 2013, 43– 44, figs. 38–46, 48, 49, 51, 56–58). The actual baetyls that have been recovered in Cretan settlements had the form of rounded boulders (Crooks 2013; Crooks, Tully, and Hitchcock 2016, 158). It is proposed that these objects symbolically acted as metaphors, bringing the actual landscape settings of mountains and peak sanctuaries into a built environment (Crooks, Tully, and Hitchcock 2016, 162).

2

Fieldwork

The site on the summit of the peak of Leska was discovered during a visit by Adonis Kyrou in 2003, who collected Neopalatial remains. In 2011, the Municipality of Kythera showed interest in Leska, and in that same year, Aris Tsaravopoulos and I conducted fieldwork research. We measured the wider area of the peak where finds were recovered. They seemed to be concentrated on the relatively flat summit over an area of ca. 0.24 ha. The only restriction was the east side of the hill, which has steep slopes and high-grown vegetation that prevent investigation. In order to understand the distribution of finds and locate the center of the site, two methods of research were undertaken. First, a small-scale intensive survey took place on the summit of the hill in order to identify the main concentration of finds. Based on the results of this survey, we chose the appropriate area in which to set the trenches for the excavation. Second, we systematically excavated part of the site in order to address our research aims.

Research Aims The use of two separate research methods—that is, survey and excavation—provides the opportunity to address different questions and acquire a wider understanding of this site. The results of previous research conducted on Kythera and the presence of a potentially similar contemporary site, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, form a template against which certain hypotheses can be tested. Beyond the narrative that already exists for prehistoric Kythera, however, a new attempt to assess the Minoan phase on the island can be made. Thus, parallels can be drawn and wider questions on Kythera, peak sanctuaries, the process of Minoanization, and Minoan culture also can be addressed. In Chapter 1, it is made clear that Leska can be placed within its contemporary Kytherian context and in the framework of Minoan peak sanctuaries, in particular within the sphere of interaction between these two settings.

18

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

The results of the systematic survey provide the picture of the current dispersal of the finds on the summit of Leska. The finds allow us to ascertain the number of sites in the area and the chronological periods during which the hilltop was systematically used. Survey results also allow for a general idea of the size of each site, and the types of finds also indicate the character of use in each phase. The distribution of finds also tell us about the postdepositional conditions on this relatively flat hilltop, which has a significant degree of exposed bedrock. Observations on the topsoil provide additional information about the site and the erosion of the hill. The aim of the excavation was to address a series of research questions that could shed light on this particular site and on Kythera in general. The central issue was the character of the site of Leska, whether it was a sanctuary or a settlement. The chronological use of the site was an equally important question, in relation to the other peak sanctuary on the island, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, as well as to the process of Minoanization in this part of the island. The physical size and actual location of the site underlines its use, emphasizing the role of landscape in its formation. The understanding of performed rituals, if Leska was indeed a peak sanctuary, is also an important aspect. By comparing and contrasting the two peak sanctuaries (i.e., Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno), the cultic differences and similarities can be highlighted. For Leska, this process in particular led to the understanding of its character: whether it was a rural version of a peak sanctuary, a blend of Cretan and local/Kytherian elements, or a strong local/ Kytherian religious substratum with some Cretan features. The finds also are of primary importance in understanding Minoanization in this part of Kythera, the movement of goods and people, and the cultic character at Leska. A more solid understanding of whether there was any construction as part of a peak sanctuary was also provided by the excavation, a fact that is unclear at the moment on Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. Overall, the aim of this research was to provide a better understanding of this site, its role in relation to Kythera and to Hagios Georgios sto Vouno in particular, its character as a peak sanctuary in comparison to the Minoan examples within Crete and beyond, and the degree of Minoanization in this part of the island.

Survey The relationship between surveys and peak sanctuaries is old and complicated. Peak sanctuaries largely have been located by field-walking surveys undertaken by individual scholars, mainly due to their remoteness and difficult access. The topographical positions of surface remains in the landscape have played an equally important role in their identification as peak sanctuaries. Nevertheless, surface finds have rarely been discussed properly in the scholarship; instead, a few diagnostic sherds are mentioned to provide a date, as well as the presence or absence of figurines or pebbles. For the better studied sites there are some interesting observations: for example, at Atsipades sherds only occasionally were attested, while only one piece of a figurine was seen; for Krzysztof Nowicki, this lack of evidence could make a surveyor overlook the site (2007b, 4), and it is a significant reminder of how limited the remains of such a peak sanctuary currently could be, and thus little information, apart from their topographical locations, could be indicative of their presence. Many finds from the slopes of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno were collected prior to the excavation, though the criteria for choosing what to collect remain unclear, and no further discussion is available (Sakellarakis 2011, 147). The more recent project conducted by Emilia Banou at the same site included a small-scale systematic survey on the upper part of the mountain in order to provide a clear view of the wider area (pers. comm., 20 December 2012). In the archaeological program at Vrysinas, a small-scale systematic survey took place in its surrounding mountainous region parallel to excavation. The finds argue that this area was used since the end of the Neolithic period, with some sherds belonging to LM IIIC–PG and the 15th century a.d. in addition to earlier Minoan phases (Kordatzaki 2010, 465, map 1). In the area of the intensive survey of Leska, the flora and fauna were also noted, thereby providing additional information on the site. The flora included wild onions, tuber, maquis, and other low bushes with long, thick and tough roots, but no trees like on the rest of Mt. Mermigkari. A comparison of the flora between an area on the hill that was affected by the 2003 fires and one that was not, specifically on the eastern half of the summit,

19

FIELDWORK

A

B C D

1

E

2

F

3 4 5

1–10 sherds

6

10–20 sherds

7 8

20–50 sherds

9

>50 sherds Not surveyed

Illustration 3. Sketch map of the surveyed area of the Leska peak showing the survey grid and concentrations of finds. Plan M. Georgiadis.

indicated that the same species were present in both areas, but that those growing in the area affected by the fires were smaller in size. In July 2011, the fauna observed included goats, snakes, lizards, many ants, many beetles, small mosquitoes, and butterflies. More wild animals certainly pass through or use this area, but they were not noted during our visits. Two bullet cartridges found on top of the summit suggest that birds pass by the summit, something confirmed by the locals. These are migratory birds that pass through the island during spring and autumn, a spectacular sight across the sky and the high places of Kythera. The survey conducted in this region include a small systematic survey on the summit of Leska and an unsystematic survey involving field-walking in order to define the pathways leading to the summit.

Systematic Survey Methodology The small size of the site at Leska allowed a smallscale, detailed, and intensive survey method to be followed in order to cover and collect the material preserved on the surface. For that reason, 24 tracts

0

50 m

measuring 10.00 x 10.00 m were set across the area of interest, which in total measured ca. 0.24 ha (Ill. 3). These tracts were situated on a north–south axis with the point of reference being the highest point of the summit (496.50 m asl), based on the Greek Military map (HGMS 8327/5). The tracts were measured and surveyed by eight trackers within two days, July 2–3, 2011. The aim of these small tracts was to cover the entire surface in a detailed and methodical way, and to recover all the available surface finds. In that way, a reliable statistical method was developed and comparisons between tracts were more reliable. Moreover, the dispersal of finds provided a more accurate picture. Tract data sheets were used to note the ground visibility, the weather conditions, the number of finds, the character of the finds, the color of the soil, the area with the largest concentration within the tract, and the presence of any construction. These data provided a better understanding of the conditions and allowed uniform results. Each tracker had 30 minutes to cover each tract (i.e., a 100.00 m² area) and fill in the tract sheet. Similar detailed surface coverage had taken place during the KIP survey and proved to be a successful strategy for understanding the characters of sites. Thus, the method followed at Leska was based on a reliable example that has been employed

20

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

in the same environment, and therefore the work at Leska produced methodologically comparable data, ensuring that similar questions could be answered and that a detailed picture would emerge. Later excavation tested the reliability of the surface measurements and the actual quantity of finds. At the same time, it addressed the important issue of postdepositional processes on the Leska hill, where erosion would have played an important role. Thus, the combination of the two methods was beneficial for the investigation of the site and allowed assessment on different scales. An observation of the surface soil colors within the tracts also provided a wider view of the hilltop and not just the excavated area. These data also can be used in relation to excavated finds for a better understanding of stratigraphy and postdepositional conditions. In addition to providing a small-scale view of a prehistoric sanctuary and its distinct characteristics, the survey provides a broader and more diachronic story for the Leska peak as a whole. Visibility The weather during the aforementioned two days of fieldwork was misty and not as bright as a normal summer day. Nonetheless, it was clear enough for the ground surface to be seen and was not considered as a significant negative factor. Elsewhere, visibility was affected by overgrown vegetation of large, but still low bushes such as maquis, wild onions, wild bulbs, and others. The 2003 fires that affected this part of the island had burned the southern and western slopes of the hill as well as the summit, but not the northern and eastern slopes. The latter slopes had high, almost impenetrable bushes, which in combination with the steep slope resulted in the rather limited visibility of the ground surface. Thus, due to the fires, the area covered by the survey was one of the clearest on the Leska slopes. Vegetation was covering ca. 10%– 30% of the surface in each tract, depending on the soil availability and the bedrock exposure. The limestone bedrock was more varied in the tracts, covering ca. 20%–50% of the surface, attested both on the top of the hill and on the slopes. There was a balance, however, between a high percentage of bedrock exposure and a low percentage of vegetation and vice versa.

Character of Finds From the 24 tracts, a total of 597 finds have been recovered, all belonging to ceramic items—that is, pottery sherds and tiles. No stone tools of any kind, no metal objects, and no glass items have been identified. Furthermore, there were no architectural elements observed, with the exception of three cairns, one in tract D3, one in tract D4, and one more outside the survey area east of tract C1. In a majority of tracts (15; B2, B3, B5, C2, C3, D3, D6–D9, E3–E7) the number of surface finds varied from one to ten, while in E8 none were found (Ill. 3). In the rest of the tracts >10 finds were attested, forming the picture of use and dispersal on this hilltop. The survey finds are comprised predominately of body sherds (87.15%; 495), while the percentage of diagnostic sherds is 12.85% (73 total: 21 rims, 21 handles, and 31 bases; of these, there is one rim with monochrome paint and one body sherd with relief. At the survey of Vrysinas, though larger in the area covered, undiagnostic body sherds were less in number, representing 70% of the sherd assemblage (Kordatzaki 2010, 464–465). The percentage of the diagnostic sherds and the popularity of bases are issues that also can be tested in comparison to the excavation results from Leska. The vast majority of the survey sherds were prehistoric fabrics (563), and only a limited number of finds could be identified as Classical (2), Greco-Roman (29 tiles), or post Medieval (3). The fabric of the coarse prehistoric pottery is mainly Red Micaceous Ware (422), Mudstone Ware (45), and Orange Coarse ware (6). The 88 Fine Ware sherds are in Light Brown and Orange fabrics. Sherds of a red fabric have Black-Glazed decoration (2), and sherds of a red-orange clay (6) may be of the same Archaic– Hellenistic date, since four are Greco-Roman tiles. The coarse Light Brown fabric (25) belongs exclusively to tiles, while the post-Medieval sherds have a fine orange clay (3). Tiles are very diagnostic finds as their thickness allows them to be well preserved and easily identifiable in surface survey. In total, 29 were collected during the survey on the summit of Leska, specifically in tracts B1, B2, C2, and E3. Another diagnostic pottery type is the Minoan tripod cooking vessel, whose thick, durable legs are commonly

FIELDWORK

well preserved. At Leska, five have been recovered during survey, as well as a rim from a similar type of vessel, in tracts B3, B4, C4, and D9 (Ill. 3). Dispersal of Finds There were two important concentrations of finds on Leska, the first in the north and the second roughly in the center of the survey area (Ill. 3). The first is located at the northern end of the area, centered at tracts B1 (26) and C1 (15). Interestingly, only in tracts B1, B2, C2, and E3 (1) have tiles been identified, while in B1 two Black-Glazed sherds of the late Archaic–early Classical period were recovered. Thus, tracts B1 (26), B2 (4), C1 (15), and C2 (8) can be considered a single site, with 53 finds that comprise 8.88% of the total finds from the survey. The same may apply to some extent for the Classical period in tract E3, but it must be stressed that most of the finds there are prehistoric in character. Moreover, the largest concentration of finds was found in the center/southeastern part of tract B1, in the northern part of B2 (i.e., the part closest to tract B1), in the southwestern part of C1 (i.e., the part closest tract B1), in the northern part of C2 (i.e., closest to tract C1), and in E3 in the southern and western part of the tract below the highest point, D4. The shape of the tiles and the presence of Black-Glazed sherds argue for a use during the historic period, specifically during late Archaic– Classical. The tiles additionally argue for the existence of a permanent structure that today is not visible on the ground surface. This lack of evidence could be interpreted as the result of human activity, such as a secondary use of the building material in the form of the stone cairns in D3 and D4 and east of tract C1, or used for producing lime in the limekilns located a few hundred meters to the north and south on the lower slopes of Leska. The second concentration of finds is larger in size and found in the center of the area of the survey, in particular south and southwest of the highest point of Leska. In tracts C4 and C5 the largest concentrations of finds in this survey area were found, with >100 from each (143 from C4, 126 from C5). In B4, D4, and D5, which extend east and west of tracts C4 and C5, the recovered finds were >50 each (68 from B4, 79 from D4, 74 from D5). It should be noted that tract B4 is lower in

21

elevation than C4 and C5, but tracts D4 and D5 are higher. Finally, in tract C6 >10 finds also were observed (14). All the finds collected from these concentrations (504) belong to the prehistoric period and consist of 84.42% of the total material recovered from the survey. In tract C4, the smaller of the two cairns within the survey area was identified (Cairn 1), and the higher concentration of finds in B4 was observed at the southeastern part of the tract. It should be also noted that all the post-Medieval sherds were concentrated among the prehistoric sherds in tracts B4 and B5—that is, on a lower slope of the peak. An important difference exists also in the character of the finds between the two identified concentrations. The predominance of tiles at the north shows that coarser sherds are more numerous than fine. The same picture comes also from tracts B3 and D9: in both cases the character of the finds suggests that they exclusively are prehistoric. The opposite case applies for the larger concentration and the rest of the tracts, where fine ware predominates over coarse. Soil The observation of the soil in the survey tracts revealed two different types, one with a reddish color and one with brown. Each of these soil types is recovered in separate areas, but at the same time they are well related to each other. The less common type is the brown, which has been identified in the higher elevations of the Leska peak. The reddish soil is found on the lower slopes, where it is the dominant type of soil. In particular, the brown soil was found covering the surfaces of tracts E3 and D1–D4, in the northern half of D5, in the eastern half of C1–C3, in C4– C5, and in B4. In all the adjacent tracts of this area, with the exception of the northeast slope of the hill due to the limitations on research discussed above, the reddish soil was recovered. Combining the presence of the brown soil and the main dispersal of finds, it is clear that there is a strong association. The brown soil also is partly related to the northern concentration of finds, while there is very close spatial association with the larger concentration. Furthermore, the tracts with limited finds are in all cases in the reddish soil. Thus, it seems that

22

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

there is a closer connection between the brown soil with the prehistoric site and with the presence of more finds. This soil type also could be considered as that present on the highest part of the summit, which has been washed down through erosion and other environmental processes. The dispersal of the brown soil, however, is limited, and if the hypothesis of correlation with the prehistoric finds is correct, the site is small and erosion is limited. Although the lack of high vegetation and tree coverage help erosion, the relatively flat upper part of the hill, the fact that the upper hill was not used as land for cultivation, and the exposed bedrock may have limited this process. Excavation later allowed more detailed analyses of the relationship between different soil types and thus further aided in the understanding of the site.

Fieldwalking Survey The limited timeframe and resources of this project did not allow a large-scale systematic survey covering most of the mountainous area of Mt. Mermigkari. Nonetheless, one of the questions addressed in this project was the investigation of the routes that worshippers followed in order to visit the peak sanctuary and other sites with cultic importance on Mt Mermigkari. Thus, following the local topography we traced alternative paths to reach the peak of Leska from the lowland area of the plateau of Mylopotamos. The modern dirt road connecting Rizes with Skoulantrianika has a roughly north–south axis, running parallel to the main mass of the Mermigkari peak and situated on its lower slopes. A Minoan body sherd of Mudstone fabric was noted ca. 40.00 m northwest of the hamlet of Skoulantrianika along the aforementioned road (Merm.1; Ill. 2). On a gentle part of the slope east of the Mermigkari peak, there is a slope extending to the east where a Minoan Red Micaceous body sherd was seen along with a few pieces of chert (Merm.2). The latter were not part of the local geology, and they seem to have been brought from elsewhere. A few tens of meters southwest of Rizes village, two Minoan Red Micaceous sherds were observed, one body sherd and one horizontal handle from a tripod cooking vessel (Merm.3). On the modern path connecting Rizes

with the Mylopotamos village, numerous pieces of Mudstone ware and chert were observed in the local geology. It is highly possible that the stone vessel reported by Tsaravopoulos as having been recovered along this dirt road was found close to these sites (2012, 19). The distance between the first two sites (Merm.1, Merm.2) is ca. 600.00 m, and between the second and third site (Merm.2, Merm.3) it is ca. 350.00 m. It should be noted that in many cases the Neopalatial farmsteads were situated at distances of 200.00–300.00 m apart in the area covered by KIP (Bevan 2002, 226–228). It is believed that their close proximity in east Kythera was marriage based or reflected a strategy to colonize the landscape. On a roughly circular field protected by a dry stonewall, at a lower slope ca. 230.00 m northwest of the summit of Mermigkari, part of an obsidian blade was seen, along with an amorphous piece of clay and a metal slag (Merm.4). Farther to the northwest, ca. 750.00 m from the peak and on a lower slope, two Minoan Red Micaceous sherds were observed, one body sherd and one flat base from a closed vessel (Merm.5). On a radius of ca. 20.00 m outside and east of the Katafygadi Cave entrance, there was a small concentration of mainly Minoan Mudstone body sherds. On the southern slopes of Leska, farther south from the surveyed area, some Minoan Red Micaceous body sherds also were seen, which is surprising since the survey has shown that toward the south there was a rather limited dispersal of finds. On the slopes of the Leska summit, sherds are found mainly to the west, partly a result of post-excavation erosion and movement and possibly partly due to remains of the ascending path. On the south slope where the postdepositional hypothesis cannot be supported by the available evidence, and at a considerable distance from the main concentration of the site, it could be argued that these remains mark part of the route leading from the lowland paths to the peak. Excavation The excavation that followed the survey lasted from July 3–26, 2011, in total 21 days of fieldwork. During the first two days, the weather was cold and misty, with low visibility resulting from a low cloud coming in from the west. Windy conditions were experienced for seven days, and during

23

FIELDWORK

a couple of those days the winds were very powerful. The worst conditions were the result of winds coming from the east—that is, from the Aegean Sea and the Kythera plateaus—which did not allow standing and working for extended periods of time. Interestingly enough, a few meters to the west, just off the highest north–south line of the summit and within the boundaries of the site, the conditions were more favorable to work and stand. The rest of the days, 12 in total, were hot and sunny with limited wind. Most of the days there were nine archaeology students and volunteers, but on some days there were seven. The criteria for opening trenches were based on the results of the survey, especially in squares B4, C4–C5, and D4–D5. The main aims of the spatial arrangement of the trenches were primarily to define the size and boundaries of the site, and secondarily to determine the degree of postdepositional erosion. The latter became more meaningful considering the location of the site on a summit and the surrounding slopes, especially to the west where a larger concentration of finds were noted in square B4 on a lower slope. The reference point for the excavation was taken at the highest point of the Leska peak, 496.50 m asl, as was the case during the survey (Ill. 4).

Trench 1 Trench 1 (T.1) was laid out 0.60 m north of the reference point and measured 4.00 x 4.00 m, half in part of tract C3 and the other half in square D3 (Pl. 4A). This specific location was chosen for several reasons, the first to test whether the limited surface finds of the survey were limited equally in the deposits under the surface. Also, this location was closest to the highest point of the summit and seemed to have retained enough soil. Furthermore, at the center of the southern part of the trench, an outline of roughly rectangular exposed bedrock was visible, and further investigation was needed to determine its character. The trench was excavated within six working days from July 3–8, 2011. Trench 1 was uneven, with the southern part higher in elevation than the northern. The surface soil in the southwest corner was at 495.79 m asl and that in the northeast

T.1

Cairn 2

Cairn 1

T.2

T.6

T.3

T.4 T.5

0

N

4.00 m

Illustration 4. Excavation trenches on the peak of Leska. The black dot represents the highest point of the mountain (496.50 m asl), which is on exposed bedrock. Plan M. Georgiadis.

was at 495.25 m asl. First, we concentrated on the southern half of the trench to bring it to the same level as the northern. The area outside the rectangular outline of exposed bedrock was context 101, and the area within it was context 102 (Pl. 4B). The soil was soft and brown (7.5YR 4/3–4/4, brown; Munsell Color 2010). Few small stones were attested in both contexts 101 and 102, but most of the limited Minoan finds as well as a small piece of bone were found in context 101. Two small pebbles were found at the southernmost part of the trench in context 101, just below the exposed bedrock that forms the highest point of the peak. In the southeastern part of context 101, two blackglazed sherds and limited pieces of ancient glass in poor preservation were recovered. At 495.66 m

24

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

asl, the brown soil as described above continued in the southeastern part of context 101 and in context 102. It changed to a red and soft soil in the southwestern part of context 101, however, where part of a greenish-gray stone vessel was found. Expanding the excavation to the northern part of the trench, the same brown soil was attested, but there were very limited finds. The most important were two prehistoric bronze items situated relatively close to each other in the central-northern part of T.1, a globular pin-head (M1) at 495.51 m asl and the other, perhaps part of a pendant (M3), at 495.43 m asl. It should be noted that during the first centimeters of excavation in the northernmost part of the trench, a modern bullet cartridge was recovered. Context 102 contained almost no sherds and thus was a natural feature with limited soil reaching bedrock at 495.56 m asl. At 495.54 m asl, the southwestern part of context 101, context 103 began where the soil became reddish brown, hard, and devoid of finds; just below that the bedrock was reached. In the southeastern corner of context 101, there was a different soft, reddish soil (7.5YR 4/6, strong brown) that had no finds and resembled context 103. Lower down and close to the southeastern corner of T.1, a soil of yellowish/red color was attested with no finds as well. At the same time, the lack of finds from the northern part of the trench led to the conclusion of excavation in T.1, reaching 495.27 m asl in the southwest, 495.07 m asl in the southeast, and 494.97 m asl in the north-east (Pl. 5A). The deepest deposit in T.1 had a thickness of 0.72 m.

Trench 2 Trench 2 (T.2) was laid out 4.9 m south of the reference point, and its size was 2.00 x 2.50 m (Ill. 4), half located in tract C4 and half in D4 (Pl. 5B). The location was chosen because it also had a roughly rectangular, exposed bedrock outline, and we wanted to understand its character. Moreover, it was located on the highest part of the summit where there was a lot of exposed bedrock, and this area contained more soil than others. It also allowed us to test if the numerous finds from tracts C4 and C5 were analogous to those found beneath the surface of the soil. The trench was excavated in six working days from July 3–8, 2011. Unlike T.1, T.2 was more level,

but it was divided into the small area outside the rectangular bedrock outline, context 201, and the area inside, context 202 (Pl. 6A). The surface of the soil in the center of T.2 was at 495.54 m asl. Context 201 was limited in size and contained some large and small stones in a soft brown soil (7.5YR 4/3–4/4, brown) as well as some mostly abraded Minoan sherds, a Black-Glazed sherd, and a small pebble (see below, Pl. 17). From the northwest corner, southwest and east of context 201, the bedrock was reached at 495.55 m asl in the northwest and southwest corners and also in the eastern part of context 202. The same soil characteristics were attested in context 202, in which bedrock was exposed at 495.26 m asl, and the brown soil became more compact and finer, producing many sherds as well as some clay figurines in the form of horns of consecration (F2, F3). Furthermore, part of a stone vessel (SV2), similar in color and stone type to that from T.1 (SV1), was recovered in context 202, at the center and east part of the trench. In the east side of the trench, two different contexts were recorded. The first, context 203 at 495.34 m asl, was a small, roughly circular area of reddish soil with a yellowish tinge and a fine texture (5YR 4/6, yellowish red to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown), bearing medium-sized stones and some Minoan sherds. To its south, context 204 was found, with loose red soil that contained few small stones and no finds (5YR 4/6, yellowish red to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown). The bedrock was exposed under contexts 203 and 204, where the reddish soil became reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), and also in the western portion of the trench in context 202 at 494.89 m asl and 494.78 m asl (Pl. 6B). The deepest deposit in this trench had a thickness of 0.76 m.

Trench 3 Trench 3 (T.3) was laid out 8.40 m southwest of the reference point and 0.70 m southwest of T.2 (Ill. 4). Its size was 4.00 x 4.00 m, half in tract C4 and half in C5 (Pl. 7A). The location was preferred due to its level character and the abundance of soil in this part of the summit. It also allowed us to test if the numerous finds from tracts C4 and C5 were analogous to those found beneath the surface of the soil.

FIELDWORK

Trench 3 also demonstrated the size of the site toward the southwest. Trench 3 was excavated in 14 working days from July 4–19, 2011. The trench is slightly uneven, with the eastern part being slightly higher than the western (height difference of 0.15 m in the north and 0.05 m in the south), and with its soil surface in the center of the trench at 495.01 m asl. Context 301 in T.3 consisted of a loose and brown soil (7.5YR 4/3–4/4, brown), which spread throughout the entire trench. In the northwest and southwest, a lighter and harder version of this soil was attested, with many prehistoric finds as well as a small fragment of modern glass and a Black-Glazed sherd (see below, Pl. 17), but in the northeast part of the trench there were not many finds. At 494.96 m asl in the northeast corner (1.40 m east–west, 2.50 m long north–south), context 302 appeared, a harder brown to grayish-brown soil (5YR 3/3, dark reddish brown) with limited finds, and here there was carbon associated with the recently burned roots of bushes. In the northwest corner and 0.05 m below the brown topsoil, at 494.81 m asl, another soil appeared, context 303, which was harder in consistency, reddish in color (5YR 4/6, yellowish red to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown), and contained limited finds (0.50 m north–south axis, 0.50 m east– west; Pl. 7B). The same context with limited finds appeared at the east side of T.3, 0.50 m north of the southeast corner of the trench (0.30 m east–west, 0.20 m north–south). As noted above, context 301 spread throughout the rest of the trench, providing more finds in the southern and western areas. Below 494.74 m asl, context 303 expanded in the northwestern corner to the south and east (0.50–1.00 m north–south, 1.25 m east–west axis), still producing few Minoan finds. On the southeastern side of the trench, context 303 also expanded to the south at 494.78 m asl, reaching the southeastern corner, and also to the west (1.50 m north–south, 0.25–0.90 m east– west). Below 494.86 m asl, context 302 spread to the south and west (2.55 m north–south, 2.65 m east–west), also providing few finds. From 494.80–494.75 m asl and lower, context 301 was restricted to the western half and southern part of T.3 (1.5 m north–south), producing a large number of sherds, some pebbles (Pb4–Pb20),

25

a few pieces of chalk, clay balls (CB1, CB2), and clay figurines in the form of horns of consecration (F4, F5). Below 494.76 m asl, at the center of the southern part of the trench, a small, roughly circular area (d. 0.70–0.75 m) between bedrock appeared, along with reddish-brown soil similar to that of context 302. Some sherds were found there along with part of a marble stone vessel (SV5). From 494.71 and 494.65 m asl, in the northeastern part of T.3, context 303 spread to the north (1.25 m north–south) and east (ca. 6.00 cm in the southeast corner to 2.00 m east–west), from below context 302 and parts of 301 at the center and west parts of the trench (Ill. 5). Context 303 produced very limited and in some areas no finds at all, while in the northeast corner under context 302, the reddish-brown soil was very hard (Pl. 8A). In the southeast and central part of T.3, context 301 reached the natural bedrock without a change of soil. In a small area at the west edge of the trench and 1.5 m south of its northern limit (0.75 m north–south, 0.75 east–west), the soil had a grayish-brown color and produced no finds, and the deposit was 0.15 m deep, under which context 303 appeared. Below 494.43 m asl, under the circular 302 context in the southcentral and western part of the trench, context 303 appeared with a hard consistency and no finds. The trench was closed in the northwest at 494.52 m asl, in the northeast at 494.55 m asl, in the center at 494.38 m asl, and close to the southwest corner at 494.34 m asl (Pls. 8B, 9A). The thickness of the deposits varied from 0.25 to 0.67 m, depending on the natural bedrock and, at places, the sterile reddishbrown soil.

Trench 4 Trench 4 (T.4) was a southward extension of T.3 measuring 4.00 m east–west and 3.00 m north– south (Pl. 9B). This trench was situated entirely within tract C5, and its west edge was comprised of exposed bedrock that formed a natural terrace that becomes quite steep farther west. The location was chosen in order to investigate the extension of T.3 to the south, which also retained soil deposits and

26

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

(E 0.00, N. 0.00)

(E 2.50, N. 0.00)

A

B

0.10

494.90

0.20

0.30 0.40

0.50

0.60 0.70 0.80

0.90

1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

301

494.70 300

494.60

Bedrock 302

303

303

494.40

1.00 m

0

Unexcavated

(E 4.00, N. 0.50)

(E 2.50, N 0.50)

C

B

0.10

495.12

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00 1.10

1.20 1.30

1.40 1.50

495.02

Edge of trench

494.92

301

494.82

494.52

k

oc

dr

Be

302

303

494.50

494.62

2.40

301

494.80

494.72

2.20 2.30

Be

dr

k oc

Edge of context Stone

300

Root

Bedrock

Context

302

303

Unexcavated

Illustration 5. Section of the north side of T.3. A is the southwest corner of the trench; B–C is the eastern extension of A–B. Scale 1:10. Plan D. Smith.

was relatively level. Trench 4 also allowed us to test further whether the numerous finds from tract C5 were analogous to those found beneath the surface of the soil. This location also demonstrated the spatial extent of the site toward the south. The trench was excavated in 11 working days from July 9–23, 2011. Trench 4 was slightly uneven, with the eastern part slightly higher than the western by 0.21 m and the soil surface at 495.12 m asl. The topsoil in this trench, context 401, was similar to those of previous trenches, soft and brown (7.5YR 4/3–4/4, brown) in color. It produced Minoan sherds, two pieces of chert (Ch2, Ch3), three pebbles (Pb21–Pb23), one clay ball (CB3), and part of a stone vase (SV4). The highest concentration of finds was located in the northeastern, eastern, and central parts of the trench as well as close to its southeastern corner. In the southern part of T.4, the natural bedrock was found very high. In places where there was still soil, it was almost sandy in texture, and below 494.76 m asl context 401 produced very limited finds (Pl. 10A). In the east, west, and southern parts of the trench, context 401 reached the natural bedrock without change. In the north and central part of T.4, however, from 494.67 m asl and below, the reddish soil (5YR 4/6, yellowish red to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown), labeled context 402, appeared under

context 401, as it had in the adjacent T.3 and the aforementioned T.1 and T.2. The upper portion of this context produced rather limited sherds, while lower down it was sterile and frequently reached the natural bedrock. Trench 4 was closed in the northwest at 494.58 m asl, in the northeast at 494.56 m asl, in the center at 494.59 m asl, and in the southwest at 494.65 m asl (Pl. 9A). The thickness of the deposits varied from a few centimeters to 0.56 m, since the natural bedrock was found higher in some parts of the trench.

Trench 5 Trench 5 (T.5) was laid out 14.40 m south and southeast of the reference point and 4.00 m east of T.3 and T.4 (Ill. 4; Pl. 10B). Its size was 3.00 x 4.00 m, and it was situated entirely within tract D5. The location of the trench was selected due to its level ground and the abundance of soil on this part of the summit. It again allowed us to test if the numerous finds from tract D5 found during the survey were analogous to those found beneath the surface of the soil. This placement also demonstrated the extent of the site toward the south-southeast part of the summit.

FIELDWORK

Trench 5 was excavated in nine working days from July 8–17, 2011. The trench was slightly uneven, with the eastern part slightly higher than the western part (height difference of 0.50 m between the east–west), and its soil surface in the center was at 495.15 m asl. The trench had 3.00–4.00 cm of brown topsoil (7.5YR 4/3–4/4, brown), context 501, but lower down the dominant soil across the entire trench, context 502, was soft and reddish in color with a yellowish tinge (5YR 4/6, yellowish red to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown). Context 502 contained some large and many small and medium stones, while the prehistoric sherds were much abraded. Other finds included two pieces of chert (Ch4, Ch5), three small pebbles (Pb24–Pb26), and a small bone from a small animal recovered close to the topsoil that may have been modern. A great deal of bedrock was exposed in the south­east, southwest, and northwest corners of the trench. Deeper soil, however, mainly in the northwest corner and center of T.5, had fewer and smaller stones; most of the finds were recovered from these areas. In general, there was an increase in finds in the western part of the trench as well as in a few pockets in the central-southeastern part. The natural bedrock appeared degraded and at a very high elevation in T.5, just below the reddish-brown, loose soil, and it seems that there was less soil than in other trenches. The trench was closed in the northeast at 494.65 m asl, in the center-southeast at 494.64 m asl, in the southwest corner at 494.63 m asl, and in the southeastern corner at 494.53 m asl (Pl. 11A). The thickness of the deposits in T.5 varied from 5.00 cm to 0.62 m, again because the natural bedrock was high in some parts of the trench.

Trench 6 Trench 6 (T.6) was laid out as an extension of T.3 toward the west. Its size was 3.50 x 4.00 m (Ill. 4), and it was situated half in tract C4 and half in C5 (Pl. 11B). Its location was selected due to the even ground of its eastern part and the abundance of soil in this part of the summit. In the western part, the natural bedrock forms a terrace, and an area below this terrace was included despite the difference in elevation. Excavation in the western portion of Trench 6 allowed us to test the degree of the

27

postdepositional distribution of finds in this steep area of the slope where enough soil was retained. It also demonstrated the extent of the site toward the west and more specifically on the upper slopes of the peak. The trench was excavated in six working days from July 18–26, 2011. Trench 6 was uneven, with its eastern part higher than the western (height difference 0.72 m). For that reason, we first started work in the eastern part of the trench (Pl. 12A). Here, the soil surface in the north was at 495.10 m asl and at 495.17 m asl in the south. The soil, context 601, was loose and brown in color (7.5YR 4/3– 4/4 brown) with many prehistoric sherds. A large concentration of sherds was also located by the eastern edge of T.6, 1.00 m north of the southeastern corner. The material recovered there included a few clay balls (CB4, CB5), a few pieces of chert (Ch6–Ch9), some small pebbles (Pb27–Pb36), an obsidian blade (ST1), one part of a stone vase (SV3), and two stone tools (ST2, ST3). Although context 601 continued under 494.90 m asl, there were very limited finds, as had been observed for the same soil in T.4. One exception was the sherd concentration noted above, which reached 494.82 m asl without any significant change. Under 494.85 m asl, in the northern part of the trench, a harder reddish soil (5YR 4/6, yellowish red to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown), context 602, appeared with a few sherds. It spread to the entire northern half of the eastern part of T.6, with the exception of the western edge of this area (1.50 m north–south, 0.50 m east–west). At 494.75 m asl, context 602 spread farther to the south, leaving a 1-m long north–south strip of context 601 going as low as the natural bedrock. Both contexts produced limited finds, and context 602 became progressively harder and sterile at places, also reaching the natural bedrock. The western portion of the trench also consisted of the loose brown soil, context 601, but with a rather limited number of sherds (Pl. 12B). The hard reddish-brown soil of context 602 appeared in a small area at the central-east part of this location, measuring 0.60 m north–south and 1.00 m east– west, and no finds were recovered. We concluded excavation in this part of T.6 when we reached natural bedrock and sterile soil. The eastern part of the trench reached 494.75 m asl in the northeast, 494.61 m asl in the northwest, 494.60 m asl in

28

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

the east, and 494.91 m asl in the south. The western part of Trench 6 reached 494.25 m asl in the south, 494.24 m asl in the center, and 494.18 m asl in the north. The thickness of the deposits varied from 3.00 cm to 0.60 m in the east and up to 0.24 m in the west (Pl. 13A).

Trench 7 Trench 7 (T.7) was set out 8.10 m west of T.6 and 17.10 m southwest of the reference point (Pl. 13B). It measured 1.50 x 1.50 m, and it was situated entirely within tract B4. The location of the trench was selected due to its level ground and the presence of soil on this part of the slope, thus placing it on a natural terrace. It allowed us to test if the numerous survey finds from tract B4 were analogous to those found beneath the surface of the soil. The main aim in this trench was to ascertain the degree of erosion and postdepositional activity. Trench 7 was excavated in two working days from July 19–20, 2011. The trench, with its soil surface at 492.30 m asl, was slightly uneven, with 0.07 m of surface difference. The topsoil (context 701), 3.00 cm thick, was loose and brown (7.5YR 4/3–4/4 brown). Underneath (context 702) was a loose reddish soil (5YR 4/6, yellowish red to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown) with small- and medium-sized stones and very few sherds. The bedrock was very high in most parts of this trench, and just above it the soil was sterile. The trench was closed in the north at 491.89 m asl, in the center-southwest at 492.01 m asl, and in the center at 492.05 m asl (Pl. 14A). The thickness of the deposits in T.7 varied from 3.00 cm to 0.41 m, because the natural bedrock was high in most parts of the trench.

Trench 8 Trench 8 (T.8) was laid out 1.40 m southwest of T.7 and 18.50 m southwest of the reference point (Pl. 14B). The trench had a size of 1.00 x 2.00 m, and it was situated entirely within tract B4. This location was selected due to its even ground and the presence of soil in this part of the slope, placed on a natural terrace. It allowed us to test if the numerous finds from tract B4 were analogous to those

found beneath the surface of the soil. It also allowed us to test the degree of erosion and postdepositional activity in this area. Trench 8 was excavated in two working days from 20 to 21 July 2011. The soil surface of T.8 was slightly uneven at 492.15 m asl and 0.05 m of surface difference. The topsoil (context 801) was grayish in color and very loose with many small- and medium-sized stones. The subsoil was reddish in color (5YR 4/6, yellowish red to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown) and quite loose in consistency, also with small- and mediumsized stones. A very small number of sherds were recovered, abraded in character. The bedrock was very high in most parts of this trench, while just above it the soil was sterile. In the deepest parts just above the bedrock, the soil became strong brown in color (7.5YR 5/6; context 802). Trench 8 was closed in the northeast at 491.90 m asl, in the northwest at 483.00 m asl, and in the center-south at 491.89 m asl. The thickness of the deposits varied from 2.00 cm to 0.32 m, since the natural bedrock was high in most parts of the trench (Pl. 14A).

Cairn 1 Cairn 1 was located close to the reference point, and for that reason we decided to investigate its con­struction and content (Ill. 4; Pl. 15A). The north– south axis of this cairn was aligned with the southeast corner of T.1, from which it was 0.40 m south. The excavation of Cairn 1 lasted for one day, 25 July 2011. It was roughly circular in shape, with a diameter at the top of 0.73 m and 1.08 m at the base. There was very limited brown soil (7.5YR 4/3–4/4, brown) under the stones, and the cairn had a circular stone foundation upon which the rest of the stones were piled (Pl. 15B). No finds were recovered from within the stones or the foundation, which was set on the natural bedrock. Cairn 1 appears to be a modern construction.

Cairn 2 Cairn 2 was also located close to the reference point (Ill. 4), and for that reason we decided to investigate its construction and contents (Pl. 16A). The cairn was situated 2.30 m east of the eastern side of T.1.

FIELDWORK

Cairn 2 was excavated in two working days from July 23–25, 2011. The diameter of the cairn was ca. 2.00 m, but higher up it was 0.66 m, and when the stones were removed the circular foundation on which the cairn was built measured 0.95 m in diameter. Under the cairn there was a soft brown soil (7.5YR 4/3, brown) deposit 0.30 m thick, which contained some sherds, better preserved than in most of the trenches, and parts of tiles and a small bronze sheet (M4). Within the stones in the lower part of the cairn that formed the circular foundation, a tile (not cataloged) preserving part of its black glaze was recovered, suggesting post-classical construction of the cairn, possibly during modern times like Cairn 1 (Pls. 16B, 17).

Spatial Layout of the Site The relationship between the survey and excavation results is important for methodological concerns and provides a broader image of the spatial layout of this site. The limited character of the finds in tracts C3 and D3 during the survey was confirmed by the few finds produced with the excavation of T.1 and Cairn 2 and the complete absence of finds from Cairn 1. The density of finds in T.1 is as low as 5.3 finds/m², while in T.2, for example, density is more than 200 finds/m². In fact, it seems that the finds from T.1 represent objects placed on and/or around the highest point of the summit, specifically up to 0.50–1.00 m north, on a large, exposed, oblong and roughly pyramidal area of bedrock (Ill. 4). The finds seem to have fallen downslope to this northern area due to erosion and postdepositional activity. This fact is illustrated by the distribution of bronze items, one just west of the exposed bedrock (M2), two to its north in T.1 (M1, M3), and one to its northeast in Cairn 2 (M4). Moreover, a large part of a stone vessel (SV1) recovered in T.1 was located even closer to the highest point of the summit, to its northwest. The dispersal of these offerings, along with the pottery, which was more frequent in the southern and higher part of T.1 and in Cairn 2, and far less frequent in the northern and lower portion of the trench and in Cairn 1, supports this downslope postdepositional hypothesis. Thus, the highest point of the summit and up to the southernmost part of T.1 forms the northern

29

edge of the site. The exposed bedrock there is the only feature, demarcated by its position and associated finds. Similar such cases exist in Cretan and other peak sanctuaries, some natural such as the chasm at Juktas, others artificial like the demarcated spaces at Atsipades, Keria, and Vorizi; additional cases include the stone identified as a baetyl within a building at Traostalos, and perhaps the combination of a natural hollow with a cult statue at Pyrgos (Karetsou 1981, 141; Rutkowski 1986, 80, 82; Peatfield 1990, 122; 1992, 68, 76; Kyriakidis 2005a, 65–66). Notably, the highest point of the summit depicted in the iconographic representation of a peak sanctuary on the Kato Zakros rhyton is thought to be an aniconic representation of the divinity according to Rutkowski (1986, 82). Trench 2, Trench 3, and Trench 4 were all situated within tracts C4, C5, and D4, where the densities of finds ranged from >200 to >500 finds/m² (Ills. 3, 4). These trenches represented the main area of the site, all located on the highest part of the relatively flat summit. Trench 5 was situated within tract D5, which consisted primarily of the reddish soil and had a density of 43 finds/m². Here the trench was almost flat, and the density of finds was far lower than in the main area but significantly higher than in T.1. The diagnostic pottery from T.5 was more limited, but its overall character was very similar to examples found in the main area of the site, with no significant deviation. It seems, therefore, that T.5 was the south-southeastern edge of the site where some of the main cult practices also took place. Like T.3, T.6 was located within tracts C4 and C5, but placed on their western edges. Nevertheless, the excavation of this trench revealed a substantial difference between its eastern and western parts, which were separated by a natural bedrock terrace. The difference in elevation between these two areas was significant in matters of find density, with the eastern part having 232 finds/m² and the western 10.25 finds/m². The former is close to the density of T.2, and it should be considered part of the main area of the site. The latter is closer to T.1 (5.3 finds/ m²), T.7 (8 finds/m²), T.8 (6 finds/m²), and Cairn 2 (12.4 finds/m²), all resulting from erosion and postdepositional activity. Hence, the natural terrace in T.6 forms the western edge of the site. The similarities between T.1 and western T.6 are important for understanding the character of the edges of the site

30

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

and also reveal differences with T.5, which itself exhibits a more gradual limit in its end of the site. Trench 1 and the survey of C3 and D3 provide clear evidence for the presence of northern edge of the site at the highest point of the summit (Ill. 4). The natural terrace in T.6 reveals that it forms the boundary of the site to the west. Trench 5 could provide the edge of the site in the eastern part of the site as well as to its south-southeast, but, the find density in T.4 suggests that in the south-southwest, the site extends farther to the south in comparison to T.5. Thus, the remains of the activities associated with the use of Leska cover an area of ca. 260.00 m². In comparison, the Protopalatial peak sanctuary of Atsipades was smaller, not exceeding 200.00 m² in ground coverage (Peatfield 1992, 66).

Deposits and Strata From the aforementioned analysis of the excavated trenches, it has become apparent that there were two main deposits at Leska, a brown soil (stratum 2) and a reddish soil (stratum 1), while a third soil (stratum 2a) appeared only in T.3 (Table 1). Both main soil types were noted during the survey of the upper part of the summit. The excavation has provided a more detailed impression of these deposits and identified their relationships. Trench 1 and Trench 2 represent the northern part of the excavation, where the stratum 2 starts at the surface and was quite deep, sometimes reaching the natural bedrock when it is found at higher levels (contexts 101, 102, 201, and 202). In the areas where soil was deep, the reddish soil of stratum 1 appeared, which either provided very few finds, like in context 203, or was devoid of cultural remains, such as in contexts 103 and 204. In contrast, the brown surface soil of stratum 2 was only a couple of centimeters deep in T.5, T.7, and T.8, and the main deposit, extending down to the natural bedrock, was the reddish soil of stratum 1 (contexts 501, 701, and 801). In these trenches, the finds from stratum 1 were far more limited in comparison to the trenches that had the deep brown soil, stratum 2, like in the case of context 203. In locations where the deposits were deep, the reddish soil of stratum 1 is thicker and sterile of finds.

Soil

Munsell Color

Contexts

Stratum

Brown

7.5YR 4/3–4/4, brown

101–102, 201– 202, 301, 401, 601, Cairn 1, Cairn 2

2

Dark brown

5YR 3/3, dark reddish brown

302

2a

Reddish

5YR 4/6, yellowish red, to 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown

103, 203–204, 303, 402, 501, 602, 701, 801

1

Table 1. Soil types, contexts, and strata from the excavation of Leska.

Trenches 3, 4, and 6 provide a broader and more complicated picture. In these three trenches, the brown soil of stratum 2 appeared at the surface, as was the case in all areas that were excavated. A few centimeters under the surface, in the northwestern corner of T.3, the reddish soil of stratum 2, context 303, appeared in a limited area, with the same characteristics as contexts 501, 701, and 801 mentioned above. In the eastern and northern part of T.3, a few centimeters under the brown surface soil, a dark reddish-brown deposit, stratum 2a, was recovered. This deposit was hard and clayey with limited finds, and at deeper levels it gradually extended into most of the eastern part of T.3 and covered the center and most of the northern part of the trench (context 302; Ill. 5). In contrast, the central and southern part of T.3 was dominated by the brown soil of stratum 2, which either reached the bedrock or, in deeper deposits, reached the reddish soil of stratum 1 above the natural bedrock (see west and east ends of the section shown in Ill. 5). In both cases, this area of T.3 was similar in character to the deposits of T.1 and T.2 and the number of finds from T.3 close to that of the latter trench. Deeper in the northern part of T.3, the dark reddish-brown deposit of stratum 2a was found to have been on top of reddish stratum 1 (context 303). Thus, the contexts with reddish soil dominated the northern, central, and part of the eastern areas of the trench in its deepest levels where no finds were recovered. The domination of the brown deposit of stratum 2 in the southern part of T.3 extended farther

FIELDWORK

to the south and characterized T.4. Here in most parts of the eastern, western, and southern portion of the trench, it reached the natural bedrock. In the central and northern areas where the deposits were deeper, the reddish soil of stratum 1 was found (context 402), producing limited finds as in T.2 (context 203). Trench 6 had a different character, with the brown topsoil of stratum 2 present for a few centimeters close to the northeast corner of the trench, which is next to the northwest corner of T.3. Hence the reddish deposit with few finds, stratum 1 (context 602), dominated the northeast portion of the eastern part of T.6. In the west and southern part of T.6, the situation was identical to that of the southern parts of T.3 and T.4, with the predominance of the brown deposit, stratum 2 (context 601). In the western part of T.6, stratum 2 was shallow, and only in the central-eastern portion of this area did stratum 1 (context 602) appear. From all trenches and contexts, it becomes clear that the brown soil of stratum 2 was always attested as the topsoil in the area under investigation. Sometimes it was present in deep deposits that reached the natural bedrock, always rich in cultural remains. Stratum 2 was also recovered in all cases above the reddish and dark reddishbrown deposits (strata 1 and 2a). Its color and texture argue for a deposit rich in vegetal remains, perhaps suggesting its state during the period of use. The dark reddish-brown deposit (stratum 2a) was found above the reddish (stratum 1), while the latter was always the substratum just above the natural bedrock. This was clearly terra rossa, which existed just above the limestone bedrock, and which can be called stratum 1 at Leska. The dark-reddish deposit of stratum 2a only appeared in parts of T.3 between stratum 1 and stratum 2, which had a far wider spread (Table 1). In the deep deposits of stratum 2, the upper parts were always soft, but lower down, just above the bedrock or reddish stratum 1 it became harder. Stratum 1 was a hard soil with limited finds mainly attested in its upper portions, and it became sterile of cultural material and very hard with some stones just above the natural bedrock. The dark reddish-brown deposit of stratum 2a appeared more uniform in character: hard with limited finds throughout. One of the aims of the

31

pottery analysis that follows (see this vol., Ch. 3) is to ascertain the chronological relationship between the three deposits. There are reports on the deposits and excavations conducted at three other peak sanctuaries. At Atsipades, two strata have been identified, with a gray humus up to 0.03 m thick on top followed by an orange deposit with a lot of finds directly above the sterile terra rossa placed just above the limestone bedrock (Peatfield 1992, 66). The upper stratum may have moved due to erosion, while the orange deposit is considered to have remained in situ. Leska provides a similar picture, but the deposits could be deeper, the upper stratum was brown, and the reddish stratum usually provided limited finds in its upper portion while lower it became sterile terra rossa. The arrangement of the deposits at Atsipades and Leska appear to be analogous, but chronologically they overlap for a short period. At the Traostalos peak sanctuary, deposits were as deep as 0.50 m, having a thick stratum in successive layers containing ash and earth and with a greasy texture covering most of the plateau (Chryssoulaki 2001, 59–60). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, deposits could be as deep as 4 m due to the slope, even in the upper terraces, while the main deposits in most areas were brown in color, light in the upper part and becoming progressively darker just above the limestone bedrock (Sakellarakis 2011, 224–225). In terraces 3, 4, and 5 a reddish soil with few finds was found in deeper strata (Sakellarakis 2011, 252–253, 258, 273), similar to the situation at Leska. In trench 1 and stratum 4 of terrace 5, a dark reddish-brown deposit with a loose and thin consistency was found, which appears to be similar in color to the dark reddishbrown soil of stratum 2a at Leska, but not in texture.

Discussion Important information regarding the character of Leska was derived from the excavation. A significant aspect is the existing negative evidence—in other words, what was not seen or recovered during the excavation. It also should be emphasized that the impression we have is from only a part of this site, which potentially leaves some open questions

32

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

for future analysis in different areas. Nevertheless, during the excavation of the eight trenches and two cairns, no architectural remains of the prehistoric period were recovered. No postholes were found, and no attempt to alter any of the naturally exposed limestone bedrock was attested. Special mention should be made of the cairns, one of which (Cairn 2) provided evidence that it was built in a definite post-classical era, since a tile of the Classical period was used for its construction; it possibly was made in modern times. Some tiles were collected during the survey and found in the excavation of Cairn 2, arguing for the presence of a building in the vicinity during the Classical Period. Furthermore, no remains of fire or ashes were recovered in any of the deposits. The only such evidence comes from limited carbonized roots most certainly left by the 2003 fires. A large portion of the excavation took place within crevices or between sections of exposed limestone bedrock. Especially in areas where the brown soil of stratum 2 dominated, numerous finds were attested, but they were of fragmented character. Nonetheless, there were a rather small number of sherds that formed joins, and thus it cannot be substantiated that complete pots were placed there purposefully. It is equally possible to argue that these crevices acted as catchment areas during erosion or postdepositional movement. This observation applies only to Leska, since at other peak sanctuaries it may be more plausible that complete vessels were placed there intentionally (Peatfield 1992, 67–68). Both postdepositional movement due to erosion and the purposeful deposition of offerings can be seen at Traostalos (Chryssoulaki 1999, 311). At the same time, however, there was no clear answer as to whether vessels were broken deliberately before being left as offerings at the sanctuary (Chryssoulaki 2001, 64). Overall, numerous sherds were found as well as clay and stone objects, including tools and vessels. Interestingly enough, only two small pieces of bone were found (not cataloged), one in T.1 and another from the topsoil of T.5 that was probably modern. The conspicuous absence of bones is surprising and at the same time is strong evidence of the practices that did not take place at this site. A total lack of animal bones has also been noted at the peak sanctuary at Atsipades, and the same seems to apply to Vrysinas (Peatfield 1992, 66; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2011, 298). The lack of architectural remains, evidence of fire, and bones

should be taken into account when considering the character of the prehistoric site at Leska. Making a comparison between the excavations of Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno would be a difficult task. Although the number of prehistoric sherds is known in both sites, there are variables that would be difficult to measure. For example, ca. 300.00 m² have been excavated at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, which is more than 3.5x the area excavated at Leska. Furthermore, the deposits at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno varied in depth, but they were always considerably deeper than those at Leska, often several times so. This circumstance would make any accurate measurement between the two sites very difficult in this respect, and if we consider the exposed natural bedrock it would become impossible. A few more topographic considerations should be taken into account for understanding the specific locale in which Leska was situated, the choices behind choosing this site, and the way it was developed spatially. Furthermore, the lack of a building as a focal point makes the concept of this sanctuary more notional and spatial rather than human-made and monumental. The top of Leska is a relatively flat area, roughly 40.00 x 20.00 m in size, with natural terraces (i.e., bedrock) forming its shape in more or less all directions. Of this topographical area, which was 800.00 m2 in size, the sanctuary space consists of roughly one-third. The west end of the sanctuary is delimited by the natural bedrock terracing of the peak, but the east end does not reach the natural bedrock (Ill. 4). The majority of the site seems to be located on the west side of the main north–south axis of the mountain rather than the east. This choice may be related to practical considerations— that is, the powerful northeast winds that make even standing a difficult task in the east but affect the west considerably less. On the north–south axis of the sanctuary space, the exposed bedrock at the highest point clearly demarcates the end of the area. This location possibly was the focus point of the entire site. The highest point of the peak is the most visible place from the lowlands, provides the best view over the landscape, including the plateaus of the island and beyond, and is the point closest to the sky. Finally, the deposits on the southern end of the site were possibly the result of the diachronic accumulation of offerings and the size of the congregation on specific dates.

3

Pottery

The condition of the pottery sherds recovered at Leska is far from optimal due to soil consistency, postdepositional processes, and exposure to harsh environmental elements on the mountain summit. In most of the trenches, sherds tended to be abraded, worn, and broken into relatively small pieces. In T.4 they seemed to be better preserved, however, and the same applies to those found within Cairn 2, suggesting that this structure preserved them in better condition than those exposed to the weather and to human and animal disturbance. Similar postdepositional problems of pottery preservation and condition have been reported at several peak sanctuaries in Crete, such as Kophinas and Vrysinas (Spiliotopoulou 2015, 282; Tzachili 2016, 19, figs. 2, 3). At Leska, a thin brown layer of accretion was deposited by the soil on the surfaces of the sherds, and it only partly could be washed off. Overall, 17,664 sherds have been recovered from this excavation, which weigh a total of 95,587.00 g. On average, each sherd weights 5.41 g, a measurement that can show the degree of their wear and abrasion. Comparable data exists from the peak

sanctuary of Vrysinas, where the quantity of the recovered material is higher (Tzachili 2016, 31, fig. 7). When considering the number of sherds from Leska in relation to their weight, however, it becomes apparent that the average weight of examples from Leska is almost half that of the examples from Vrysinas. It seems that the local ceramic assemblage was exposed to the elements (both natural and anthropogenic) far longer and possibly in worse conditions than that of Vrysinas in order to have a far higher breakage rate. Another interesting calculation is the number of sherds per square meter in each trench. Although this calculation involves areas with different depths of deposit and amounts of exposed bedrock, it can provide a rough idea of the distribution of sherds at the site. In fact, it reveals the presence of a central area of the sanctuary comprised of T.2, T.3, T.4, and the eastern part of T.6, each with more than 200 sherds/m², and a peripheral area in the east including T.5 with more than 40 sherds/m² (Ill. 4; Table 2). The low sherd distributions in T.1, T.7, T.8, and the western part of T.6 argue that the finds in those

34

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Trench

Number of Sherds/m2

T.1

5.3

T.2

213.5

T.3

526.3

T.4

433.4

T.5

42.6

T.6

167.1

T.7

7.5

T.8

6.0

Table 2. Number of sherds/m2 in each trench excavated at Leska.

locations more likely are the outcome of erosion and postdepositional movement rather than purposeful deposition. Thus, the central part of the sanctuary appears to be ca. 200.00 m² in size, roughly 10.00 m wide east–west and 20.00 m long north–south. Adding the peripheral areas, the size of the site becomes ca. 300.00 m²—that is, 15.00 x 20.00 m. The thicknesses of the available sherds were also measured in order to provide a rough idea of the main types represented. We arbitrarily divided the sherds into two groups, those >1.00 cm in thickness and those 30.00 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 7.5YR 6/6, reddish yellow. Part of flat base with straight body and upright round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 90, 104, 178, 233, figs. 37:β88, β90, γ32, 38:ε103, 54:ω13. Date: MM IB–II. P92 (T.3; 301.3.24; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 6). Plate, rim and base. L. 3.60; w. 3.80; th. 0.60–0.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of flat base with spreading body and flaring round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 104, figs. 37:β91, 38:ε103; 1972c, 231–233, figs. 83:C12, 84:C27, C36, pl. 68:C12, C27, C36; Tournavitou 2014, 56, 348– 349, fig. 28:K428, K432, p1. 9:K432. Date: MM IIIB. P93 (T.4; 401.2.2; 07/19/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 6). Plate, rim and base. L. 1.30; w. 2.20; th. 1.00 cm. Red

57

Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6 (brown to strong brown); core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of flat base with everted rim ending at round-pointed lip. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, figs. 37:β91, 38:ε95; 1972c, 83:C11, 92:J20; Tournavitou 2014, 56, 348–349, fig. 28:K428, K432, p1. 9:K432. Date: MM IA–LM IB.

Lamps/Braziers There are many variations in the shape of the lamp/ brazier, but at Leska they are simple versions with a flat base, a curving body, and an incurving rim, along with an oval or cylindrical handle. At the settlement of Kastri, they appear in the MM IIIB phase, but they are more popular during the entire LM I period (Coldstream 1972a, 123, figs. 41:θ29, 42:μ53, 55:ω53–ω55, pl. 27:ζ89, ζ90; 1972b, 282, 288, 295; 1972c, figs. 83:A1, 85:D15–D17, 91:E66–E68, 93:J31–J33). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, lamps/ braziers are relatively common, with 42 examples made mainly out of Mudstone or coarse orange fabric and only in a few cases Red Micaceous or fine (Tournavitou 2000, 306–307; 2014, 97). This shape is rare in Crete in all contexts, but a few clay and stone versions have been identified in peak sanctuaries at Atsipades, Petsophas, Thylakas, Traostalos, the Kophinas shrine, Zou Prinias, and Vrysinas (Peatfield 1992, 70; 2007, 299; Chryssoulaki 1999, 316; 2001, 62–63; Jones 1999, tables 7, 10; Kyriakidis 2005a, 139–141, figs. 30, 33–34, tables 12, 15–16; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2010, 454, fig. 13:upper and middle row; Spiliotopoulou 2015, 283, fig. 2:δ; Tzachili 2016, 106–108, pl. 20). The absence of lamps/braziers from the published finds from Juktas has been noted, as well as their rather limited presence in very few settlements like MM III Hagia Triada (Girella 2010, pl. 35:28A/41), thus suggesting a closer, but vague association with sanctuaries and peak sanctuaries in particular (Tournavitou 2014, 99–100; Tzachili 2016, 108). It has been proposed that this shape can be used for providing lighting and/or burning incense, and its small size makes it practical for the transportation of ash and/or as an incense burner (Tournavitou 2014, 99). At Leska lamps/braziers are represented by eight handles, cylindrical and slightly oval in section, on one of which the simple rim is preserved, and one base, all in Red micaceous clay (Table 4); three examples are cataloged below (P94–P96). Two additional rims from this shape have also been identified,

58

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

one in Mudstone and one in Fine fabric (P94). Lamps/braziers represent 0.45% of the overall diagnostic sherds from the site, and they are almost exclusively made out of Red Micaceous clay. They were found in T.1–T.4 and T.6, but in T.2–T.4 (i.e., the central part of the sanctuary) they appear to be most common. The closest parallels to the Leska shapes come from Kastri, both the settlement and the cemetery (Coldstream 1972a, figs. 42:μ53, 85:16; 1972c, 251, fig. 91:E68), and from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 98), both assemblages belonging to the LM IA and IB phases. The two rims from Leska are very similar in form, but one has a more pointed rim (P95) and the other more round P94 (Fig. 6). Both find close parallels in tombs C and D at Kastri, dated to the LM IA phase (Coldstream 1972a, 123, figs. 41:θ29; 1972c, 231, 235, figs. 83:C17, 85:D15, pls. 68:C16, 70:D15). Example P95, which preserves a straight rim and complete profile (Fig. 6; Pl. 18), as well as two examples (e.g., P94) with incurving rims find parallels with the two main categories of the shape recognized at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 98). The handles of the lamps/ braziers from Leska were either oval or cylindrical in section (P95, P96; Fig. 8; Pl. 18). The popularity of the Red Micaceous fabric for this shape is found also in the majority of cases at Kastri, but not at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 98). Perhaps this circumstance is related to different circulation routes, a variety of active pottery workshops, or patterns of consumption or use. The use of these vessels as incense burners for aromatic substances is their most likely function, while their employment as lamps during early morning ascents to peak sanctuaries cannot be dismissed, either in combination with the former use or on their own. This shape appears to be specialized and closely related to sanctuaries, in which on Kythera they were preferred as compared to contemporary contexts in Crete (Tournavitou 2014, 99). These vessels appear to have been used at Leska throughout the entire LM I period. P94 (T.1; 101.2.1; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 6). Lamp, rim. L. 1.70; w. 1.50; th. 0.50 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body with inward everted rim ending at round lip. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 123, figs. 41:θ29; 1972c, 231, 235, figs. 83:C17, 85:D15, pls. 68:C16, 70:D15. Date: LM IA. P95 (T.6; 601.W.2.1; 07/25/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 6; Pl. 18). Lamp, rim and handle. L. 3.50; w. 2.70; th.

0.70–1.20 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 5YR 5/8, yellowish red; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of simple rim with part of horizontal handle attached; handle oval in section. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 123, figs. 41:θ29, 42:μ53, 55:ω53–ω55, pl. 27:ζ89, ζ90; 1972b, 282, 288, 295; 1972c, 83:A1, 85:D15–D17, 91:E66–E68, 93:J31–J33. Date: MM IIIB–LM I. P96 (T.4; 401.2.13; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 18). Lamp, handle. L. 4.70; w. 2.50; d. handle 1.20 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of cylindrical handle. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 123, figs. 41:θ29, 42:μ53, 55:ω53–ω55, pl. 27:ζ89, ζ90; 1972b, 282, 288, 295; 1972c, 83:A1, 85:D15–D17, 91:E66–E68, 93:J31–J33. Date: MM IIIB–LM I.

Rhyta The rhyton is a rare shape at Leska, with only four diagnostic sherds belonging to three different shapes (two sherds may come from the same vessel; P97–P100; Table 4). The rhyton is an uncommon shape at Kastri, but it is attested from the MM IIIB phase (Coldstream 1972b, 282). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, a relatively large number of rhyta were recovered as opposed to other contemporary sanctuaries in Crete (Tournavitou 2006; 2014, 86–87). This pottery type is very closely associated with rituals and cultic activities, but in Crete they are equally attested in settlement and burial contexts (Betancourt 1985, 105; Koehl 2006). Rhyta are reported in limited numbers in some of the peak sanctuaries in Crete such as Atsipades, Prinias, Vrysinas, Xykefalo, Juktas, Zou Prinias, Traostalos, and Kophinas, during both the Protopalatial and Neopalatial phases (Peatfield 1992, 68; Morris and Peatfield 1995, 645–646; Jones 1999, table 7; Kyriakidis 2005a, 138, fig. 32, table 14; Koehl 2006, 329–330). All the diagnostic remains of the rhyta from Leska were uncovered from the central and southern parts of the site in T.2, T.4, and T.5. Ovoid Rhyton with Pointed Base This rhyton type has an ovoid-shaped main body that ends in a pointed base, the lower part of which bears parallel horizontal incisions. This shape is common in MM III contexts in Crete, like at Kommos where it also was found with black monochrome paint, and also at MM II Viglia-Gramvoussa, but in miniature size (Betancourt 1985, 105, fig. 80:E; 1990, 112, fig. 31:654; Skordou 2012, 529, fig. 5:γ). Both examples from Leska (P97, P98) were found in T.5, and they are made out of fine buff clay (Fig.

POTTERY

6; Pl. 18). They represent the lowest part of the vessels, preserving parts of their spouts, and two parallel horizontal incisions were attested on P97 and three on P98. The same incisions, but below the rim, are relatively common on LM IA conical rhyta from Kastri (Coldstream 1972a, fig. 40:η44, η45, η47, η48; 1972b, 287). Parts of the original black monochrome paint can be identified on P98. Both examples are not joining pieces, but they could belong to the same vessel, which due to its shape could be dated in the MM III phase. P97 (T.5; 501.1.3; 07/11/2011; stratum 1; Fig. 6; Pl. 18). Ovoid rhyton, base/lower rim. L. 2.10; w. 2.30; th. 0.60–0.70; d. lower rim 4.00 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body with slightly thickened and incurving round lower rim; pointed base; three horizontal, parallel shallow incisions 1.00 cm above rim. Parallels: Betancourt 1985, 105, fig. 80:E; 1990, 112, fig. 31:654. Date: MM III. P98 (T.5; 501.1.5; 07/15/2011; stratum 1; Pl. 18). Ovoid rhyton, base/lower rim. 2.10; th. 0.70–0.80 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body with slightly thickened and incurving round lower rim; pointed base; two parallel horizontal shallow incisions 1.00 cm above rim; ext. and int. black monochrome paint. Parallels: Betancourt 1985, 105, fig. 80:E; 1990, 112, fig. 31:654. Date: MM III.

Ostrich-Egg Rhyton The ostrich-egg rhyton has a globular body, a ridged neck, and a flaring rim. This type of rhyton appeared during the MM III phase; later in the LM IA period, a ridge was added at the point where the body met the neck. This vessel was further developed into a palatial version in LM IB and beyond in Crete, for example at Hagia Eirene (Cummer and Schofield 1984, 126, pl. 85:1559; Betancourt 1985, 105, figs. 80:A, 93, 100:F, 106:B, pl. 17:C, E). The example from Leska (P99) preserves part of the meeting point of the body with the neck, which possessed a round ridge (Pl. 18). From T.4, this vessel is made out of fine buff clay. A parallel to this specimen comes from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 427, fig. 71:K830, pl. 20:K830). The addition of the ridge is another case of skeuomorphism, executed in an attempt to imitate metal prototypes. This rhyton shape should be dated in the LM IA period according to Cretan parallels. P99 (T.3; 401B.2.1; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 18).Ostrich-egg rhyton, body. L. 3.50; w. 3.30; th. 0.40–0.70

59

cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body with straight neck; horizontal cylindrical relief (th. 0.7; h. 0.4 cm) where body joins neck. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 427, fig. 71:K830, pl. 20:K830. Date: LM IA.

Conical Rhyton The conical rhyton is the most popular version of this pottery type, having an everted rim and conical walls. The preference for the conical version has been noted at Kastri since its first appearance in MM IIIB (Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 155, pl. 28:b; Coldstream 1972a, fig. 40:η44+η47; 1972b, 282, 287, 295). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, there are 26 diagnostic sherds and one intact example, all representing miniature versions of the conical rhyton (Tournavitou 2000, 304–305, fig. 2:α–ε; Sakellarakis 2013, 67); one example is cataloged below. From T.2 at Leska, rhyton P100 preserves part of a relief decoration (Pl. 18). It possibly belongs to a miniature version like those at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno that share similar decorative motifs (Tournavitou 2014, 424, 430, fig. 70:K819, 72:K839, pl. 20:K39). These motifs belong to the broader MM II–LM I phase and arethought to depict snakes (Tournavitou 2014, 83). A chthonic dimension in belief practices surrounding peak sanctuaries is proposed based also on clay finds representing snakes from Mt. Juktas in Crete (Tournavitou 2014, 114). P100 (T.2; 202.2.7; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 18). Miniature conical rhyton, body. L. 3.20; w. 3.00; th. 0.50 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of conical body with vertical cylindrical clay relief (h. 0.70; w. 0.50 cm). Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 424, 430, figs. 70:K819, 72:K839, pl. 20:K39. Date: MM II–LM I.

Cooking Vessels Cooking vessels appear to have been an important component of the activities that took place at Leska. They have been reported at peak sanctuaries across Crete at Petsophas, Juktas, Kophinas, Korakomouri, Traostalos, Vrysinas, and Atsipades (Peatfield 1992, 70; Morris and Peatfield 1995, 645; Jones 1999, table 6; Kyriakidis 2005a, 135–137, table 10, fig. 28). At Vrysinas, tripod vessels, plates, and strainers represent 2.00%–3.00% of the total assemblage, while cooking trays consisted of an

60

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

additional 2.00% (Tzachili 2003, 330; 2016, 48, 49– 52, charts 3, 4). Tripod Cooking Vessels The tripod cooking vessel is a very common shape in sites across Crete and the southern Aegean islands during the Middle Minoan and LM I phases (Filippa-Touchais 2000). They are found in all settlements and also in some sanctuaries. Tripod cooking pots have been reported in some of the peak sanctuaries in Crete like Gyristi, Petsophas, Traostalos, Vrysinas, Korakomouri, Atsipades, and Juktas (Jones 1999, 10, table 6; Kyriakidis 2005a, 135, table 10; Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 257, fig. 8:ιβ, ιγ). At the MM III Kophinas shrine, the tripod cooking vessel is the second most common shape (Spiliotopoulou 2015, 283, fig. 2:α, β). In sacred caves they appear to be rare, recovered only at Ida, while they have been found at the Kato Syme sanctuary (Jones 1999, 10, table 6). Philip Betancourt studied tripod cooking vessels at Kommos and identified two distinct shapes, types A and B (1980). They seem to coexist in the Neopalatial period, but type B was more popular than A, a circumstance that changed later when type A predominated. The image from Kastri seems to confirm this picture, though few of the coarse ware and tripod cooking vessels in particular have been published. At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, during the Neopalatial period both types existed, but type B was more popular at this site (Tournavitou 2014, 76–77). The latter site does not provide clear stratigraphy like Kastri, however, and the Neopalatial finds cover the entire MM III and LM I phases. Thus, it is safer not to consider the presence or absence of either tripod cooking vessel types as a chronological marker, but rather the ratio between them. The tripod cooking vessel is the second most popular shape at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, emphasizing the symbolic and practical importance of eating at this sanctuary (Tournavitou 2014, 76) At Leska, tripod cooking vessels are very popular, representing 12.75% of the local diagnostic assemblage (Table 4); 35 examples are cataloged below (P101–P135). The spatial dispersal of these vases across the site and the excavated trenches is notable. In T.2, T.3, and T.5 they are uncommon. In contrast, tripod cooking vessels are more popular in the pottery assemblages of T.1, T.4, and T.6,

areas that demarcate the edges of the sanctuary. The vast majority of the tripod vessels have a Red Micaceous fabric, but there are six examples in Mudstone fabric (e.g., P102, P103). The same picture is attested at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, with Mudstone fabric examples dated to the MM IB– IIIA phase (Tournavitou 2014, 76–77). The cooking vessels at Leska are of both types A and B as defined by Betancourt for Kommos (1980). The type A shape has a closed body and an everted rim with rounded lip, and it becomes progressively more popular from the LM IA phase onward at Leska (P101–P104, P106–P109; Figs. 6, 7; Pl. 18). Type B vessels have a more open shape and a larger variety of rim types, and they appeared earlier, mainly during the MM III–LM IB phase (P110–P116, P117–P126; Figs. 7, 8; Pl. 18). Examples at Leska include a Γ-type rim (P120; Fig. 7) and T-shaped rims, some of which have a concave top (P112–P116; Fig. 7; Pl. 18); more rarely, there are small knobs on the rim (P125, P126). The legs of tripod cooking pots are of two types, small and large. The small legs are short and oval to almost cylindrical in section, and they have a pointed end, with the cylindrical version appearing from the LM I period onward at Leska (P127–P129, P133; Figs 8, 9; Pls. 18, 19). This is chronologically a later type that not only survived until LM III but dominated as the main cooking shape both in Crete and on Kythera (Coldstream 1972a, 158, pl. 43:ρ54). The large legs are ovoid in section and have a rectangular end; all belong to type B tripod vessels (P130– P132, P134, P135; Figs. 8, 9; Pls. 18, 19). Legs with thick ovoid-oval sections appear to dominate the assemblage at Kastri from the MM IIIB period until the end of LM I (Tournavitou 2014, 78). At Leska, the type A tripod cooking pot overall was more popular than type B, represented at 55.00% and 45.00%, respectively. Nonetheless, this picture is not uniform troughout all trenches. In T.6, type A and type B were recovered in equal numbers, while in T.4 type B was dominant. In T.1–T.3 and T.5, type A predominated. In fact, in T.1.–T.3 the percentage of type A cooking vessels is as high as 80.00%–100.00%, but this calculation is based on the few available examples. Interestingly enough, some of the tripod vases from Leska were decorated either with paint (3) or with plastic elements (7). There is one example

POTTERY

of Mudstone fabric that has brown paint (P102), and two examples of Red Micaceous clay, one with brown monochrome paint (P102; Fig. 6), and another with external red paint and internal black paint (P112; Fig. 7; Pl. 18). The plastic decoration usually appears externally, close to the lip of the vessel in the form of incisions (P122; Fig. 8; Pl. 18), two finger impressions (P123, P124; Pl. 18), two knobs (P125, P126; Pl. 18), and two with plastic bands/lines (not cataloged). The spatial and chronological differences among the tripod cooking vessels from Leska are significant for understanding the practices within the context of this sanctuary. It seems that during MM III, tripod cooking vessels were found mainly in T.4 and T.6, and less in T.3. This circumstance suggests that feasting was practiced in the more peripheral areas located toward the southwestern edge of the sanctuary, thus having a view over the mountainous landscape of Mt. Mermigkari. Tripod cooking vessels were attested in all trenches, but they were still more popular in the aforementioned three (T.3, T.4, T.6), with the addition of T.1. Eating as part of feasting practices on the peak of the mountain and within the space of the sanctuary was a significant activity, closely associated with the rituals that took place at Leska. The same importance is shared with the practices identified at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, revealing the role of feasting in the peak sanctuaries of Kythera throughout the Neopalatial period. P101 (T.2; 202.1.1; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 6). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.90; w. 3.80; th. 0.70– 0.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving upper body with flaring-round rim; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P102 (T.3; 301.1.6; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 6). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 4.20; w. 2.90; th. 0.60 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of S-shaped body with flaring-round rim; ext. brown monochrome paint. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P103 (T.3; 301.1.9; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 6). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 1.80; w. 2.00; th. 0.70. Mudstone fabric; ext, int, core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving upper body with upright rim, triangular in section; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980; Tournavitou 2014, 409, fig. 61:K744, p1. 15:K744. Date: LM IB. P104 (T.4; 401.1.6; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 6; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 5.10; w. 5.80;

61

th. 0.60–0.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of slightly incurving body with everted rim and simple round lip. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P105 (T.3; 302.4.1; 07/13/2011; stratum 2a; Fig. 6). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.10; w. 2.70; th. 0.60– 0.80; d. rim 20.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 5YR 5/4–5/6, reddish brown to yellowish red; core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of curving body with round and slightly flaring rim; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P106 (T.3; 301.1.15; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 3.6; w. 4.0; th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of curving body with round and slightly flaring rim; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P107 (T.5; 501.1.1; 07/08/2011; stratum 1; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 3.00; w. 2.60; th. 0.80–1.20 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 2.5YR 5/8, red. Part of body with flaring and thickened round rim; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P108 (T.5; 501.1.1; 07/11/2011; stratum 1; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 3.40; w. 3.60; th. 0.90–1.10 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 7/6, reddish yellow. Part of body with flaring and thickened round rim; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P109 (T.6; 601.W.2.4; 07/25/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.20; w. 2.40; th. 0.60– 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. 2.5YR 4/6, red; int. and core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of incurving upper body with flaring round rim; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P110 (T.4; 401.1.6; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 3.20; w. 3.00; th. 0.60– 0.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight body with flaring rectangular-round rim; rim flat on top with round lip; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III– LM IB. P111 (T.3; 301.2.9; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 1.90; w. 2.50; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of slightly incurving upper body with slightly thickened rectangular rim; rim flat on top; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P112 (T.4; 401.2.10; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 3.40; w. 3.70; th. 0.60 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of slightly S-shaped upper body with T-rim; ext. red paint, int. black paint; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P113 (T.3; 301.2.10; Date: 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.00; w. 2.30; th. 0.60

62

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight upper body with thickened T-rim; rim slightly concave on top with int. and ext. round lips; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P114 (T.6; 601.A.1.1; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 3.00; w. 4.40; th. 0.50– 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int 7.5YR 5/4– 5/6, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1 dark bluish gray. Part of straight upper body with thickened T-rim; rim slightly concave on top with int. and ext. round lips; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III– LM IB. P115 (T.4; 401.1.1; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.20; w. 4.20; th. 0.70–1.10 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight upper straight body with thickened T-rim; rim slightly concave on top with int. and ext. round lips; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P116 (T.3; 303.3.1; 07/09/2011; stratum 1; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.30; w. 3.60; th. 0.50– 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of upper incurving body with slightly thickened T-rim; rim flat on top with int. and ext. round lips; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P117 (T.4; 401.2.1; 07/20/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.60; w. 3.30; th. 0.60 cm. Gray Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core Gley 2 3/1, very dark bluish gray. Part of straight upper body with slightly flaring and thickened round rim; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P118 (T.3; 301.3.49; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 4.50; w. 4.20; th. 0.50–0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight upper body with negative evidence of the genesis of a push-through handle and slightly flaring round rim; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P119 (T.4; 401.1.4; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 3.90; w. 3.80; th. 0.80–0.90 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown. Part of straight body with very slightly thickened round rim; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P120 (T.4; 401.1.5; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 7). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 3.30; w. 2.80; th. 0.50–1.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and core 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; int. Gley 2 4/1 dark bluish gray. Part of slightly incurving body with everted Γ-shaped rim; rim flat on top with round lip; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P121 (T.4; 401.2.2; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 8). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 4.40; w. 3.60; th. 0.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of

portion of slightly S-shaped body with triangular rim and pointed-round lip; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P122 (T.3; 301.3.22; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 8; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 1.70; w. 4.20; th. 0.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 2.5YR 5/8, red. Part of portion of incurving upper body with everted rim; rim flat on top with round lip; ext. rim short and small oblique slashes; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P123 (T.4; 401.2.12; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 1.50; w. 3.80; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 5YR 5/6, yellowish red; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of portion of incurving upper body with everted rim; rim flat on top with round lip; ext. lip two finger impressions; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P124 (T.4; 401B.2.2; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 1.50; w. 3.80; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 5YR 5/6, yellowish red; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of portion of straight body with everted and thickened round rim; ext. lip one finger impression; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P125 (T.3; 301.3.51; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.60; w. 2.90; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 2.5YR 5/8, red. Part of incurving upper body with everted round rim; ext. lip oval knob (L. 1.80; w. 0.80 cm); type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980; Tournavitou 2014, 410– 411, 416, figs. 62:K751, 64:K758, 65:K770. Date: MM III–LM IB. P126 (T.4; 401.2.4; 07/19/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, rim. L. 2.60; w. 1.70; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 2.5YR 5/8, red. Part of straight body with slightly thickened rectangular rim; rim flat on top with round ext. lip; ext. lip large horizontal oval knob (L. 1.20; w. 2.10 cm); type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980; Tournavitou 2014, 410– 411, 416, figs. 62:K751, 64:K758, 65:K770. Date: MM III–LM IB. P127 (T.4; 401.1.2; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 8; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 5.60; d. leg 1.60– 1.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of leg with cylindrical section and rectangular end; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P128 (T.3; 301.3.44; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 8). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 2.90; w. 6.90; th. 1.10 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of curving lower body and leg with ovoid section; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P129 (T.3; 301.3.45; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 8). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 6.70; w. 6.10; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. 2.5YR 4/6, red; int. and core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of curving lower body

POTTERY

and leg with ovoid section; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: LM IA–IB. P130 (T.4; 401.1.1; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 8; Pl. 18). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 4.10; w. 6.8; max. th. leg 3.1 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of leg with ovoid section attached on lower body close to sides vessel; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P131 (T.4; 401.2.10; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 8; Pl. 19). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 6.50; w. 6.00; th. 0.70; max. th. leg 2.60 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of slightly curving body and leg with ovoid section; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P132 (T.4; 401.2.11; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 8; Pl. 19). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 7.20; w. 8.60; th. 0.90; max. th. leg 3.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of slightly curving body and leg with strapovoid section; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. MM III–LM IB. P133 (T.6; 601.1.1; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 5.90; th. leg 2.00–2.40 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4, brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of small leg with ovoidcylindrical section; type A. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P134 (T.4; 401.2.7; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9; Pl. 19). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 8.70; w. 7.50; th. 1.00; th. leg 4.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/6, strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of curving lower body and leg with ovoid section; type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB. P135 (T.3; 301.3.23; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9). Tripod cooking vessel, leg. L. 3.00; w. 6.60; th. 1.00; th. leg 4.00. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of curving lower body and leg with ovoid section (L. 4.20 x w. 2.40 cm); type B. Parallels: Betancourt 1980. Date: MM III–LM IB.

Closed Vessels The closed vessels at Leska include different types of jugs, jars, and pithoi. They represent almost 13.00% of the total number of diagnostic sherds from this site. They were more popular in T.1 and T.5, however, and uncommon in T.2. Closed vessels intended for storage and serving are commonly attested in small and medium sizes and less frequently in larger ones at peak sanctuaries in Crete (Jones 1999, table 6; Kyriakidis 2005a, 133, table 9).

63

Jugs Following cups and tripod cooking vessels, jugs are also relatively popular vessel types at Leska. This broad category includes various shapes such as lownecked jugs, ewers, low-spouted jugs, and juglets. Jugs consist of ca. 8.80% of the assemblage, including the bridge-spouted jar, but their presence varies in the different trenches: they were popular in T.1 and T.6, had modest numbers in T.2 and T.4, and were more common in T.3 and T.6. Jugs had diverse practical uses, and these multifunction vessels are important for the understanding of the practices performed at Leska. They could have been used as containers for bringing liquids from the surrounding settlements to the site, closed by a lid or a cloth. At the site, jugs could have been placed as offerings along with their contents, possibly wine or other beverages. Alternatively, they could have been used for pouring liquids into cups for consumption and/or used for pouring libations as part of ritual activities. Whether emptied after use or used with contents, at least some jugs were left to the sanctuary as offerings. Jugs are not as common in peak sanctuaries as one would think, but they have been reported at Atsipades, Juktas, Petsophas, Spili Vorizi, Vrysinas, Korakomouri, Maza, and Kophinas (Myres 1902–1903, 378–380; Jones 1999, table 6; Tzedakis, Chryssoulaki, and Vokotopoulos 1999, 323; Kyriakidis 2005a, 133–134, table 9; Peatfield 2007, 299; Tzachili 2016, 46–47, 49–52, charts 3, 4). Jugs with Cutaway Spout At Leska, many jugs have a cutaway spout. Jugs of this shape tend to be low-necked with an uneven rim, they have both low and high spouts, and their bodies are medium sized and appear in a variety of shapes. Different forms of jugs appear in the Minoan repertoire already from the MM III phase and continue well into the LM I period (Betancourt 1985, 123–124, figs. 79, 94). At Kastri, high-spouted jugs with cutaway spouts were common in MM IIIB and LM IB, while low-spouted ones were popular in LM IA (Coldstream 1972b, 287). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, however, they seem to have been uncommon, and they are not easily distinguishable from amphorae (Tournavitou 2011, table 1). The jug with cutaway spout is represented at Leska by 77 rims, nine handles, and one neck, together representing 4.39% of the diagnostic sherds (Table

64

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

4); four examples are cataloged below (P136–P137). Its main characteristic is the uneven rim that forms the spout of the jug (P136, P137; Fig. 9; Pl. 19). In four cases (not cataloged), the end of the handle on the rim is also preserved. The majority of these examples are made out of Red Micaceous clay (62), Mudstone sherds are common (19), and some are made out of Fine fabric that is buff in color (6). In one example, a part of the neck is made out of Mudstone clay, and on it a series of black doted decoration is preserved. A relatively common decoration applied on this type of jug (4) is the placement of small, round, oval- and ovoid-shaped knobs relatively close to the rim, a skeuomorphic element imitating metallic prototypes. A similar example has been found at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 70, 380, fig. 47:K582, pl. 12:K582). Other parallels to the cutaway jug come from MM IIIB–LM IB Kastri (Coldstream 1972a, 101– 102, 110, 131, pls. 24:ε57–ε59, 37:ζ69, ζ70, ζ72–ζ74, 30:η80, 33:μ40; 1972c, 249, pls. 72:D47, 73:D64– D68), MM IIIB Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 70–71, 380–381, fig. 47:K582, K584, pl. 12:K582, K584), MM III Vrysinas (Tzachili 2016, 111–113, pl. 23), MM III and LM IA Kommos (Betancourt 1990, 109, 111, figs. 29:613, 31:649, pl. 38:649–651), the LM IA and LM IA–IB Psychro cave (Watrous 2004, 135, 141, fig. 2:49, 148, pl. 6a), MM III, MM IIIB/LM IA, and LM IB Palaikastro (Sackett and Popham 1970, fig. 14:NP27; MacGillivray et al. 1992, 128, figs. 7:3346, 10:3; MacGillivray, Sackett, and Driessen 1998, figs. 7–9; Knappett and Cunningham 2003, fig. 18:172α, 173), MM III Knossos (Catling et al. 1979, fig. 18:90; Panagiotaki 1998, 187–188, fig. 3), and MH III Hagios Stefanos (Zerner 2008, fig. 5.56:2296). These examples suggest that the cutaway jug shape appears to represent all phases of the Neopalatial period. There are also seven rim examples from Leska, all from T.4, which belong to a trefoil-type jug (P138, P139; Pl. 19). This vessel has the shape of a cutaway jug, only with a different spout arrangement. Most examples were made out of Red Micaceous clay, but there is an example in Mudstone and another with Fine fabric. These examples find good parallel in a LM IB jug with a slight trefoil rim from Kastri made out of the same Fine fabric as the Leska example (Coldstream 1972a, 200, pl. 57:ω293), and one more jug from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno of small size with an orange fabric that belongs to the MM

III–LM I period, most probably the latter (Tournavitou 2014, 71, 381, fig. 47:K591, pl. 13:K591). This jug form is also attested in Crete, with a LM IB example from Epano Zakros (Kringa 2010, 158, fig. 11) and MM IIIB–LM IA and especially LM IB examples from Palaikastro, where it appeared to be a common shape (Sackett and Popham 1970, 221, fig. 14:NP62, pl. 62d; Knappett and Cunnigham 2003, 154, fig. 35:291; Knappett et al. 2007, 211, fig. 29:161, 163). The trefoil jug, which belongs to the Neopalatial phase, appears to have been a rare shape at Kastri and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. P136 (T.3; 301.3.52; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9; Pl. 19). Jug with cutaway spout, rim. L. 4.60; w. 3.30; th. 0.50–0.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of spreading neck with slightly flaring round rim; rim is horizontally uneven, forming a spout. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 101–102, 110, 131, pls. 24:ε57–ε59, 37:ζ69, ζ70, ζ72–ζ74, 30:η80, 33:μ40; 1972c, 249, pls. 72:D47, 73:D64–D68. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P137 (T.3; 301.3.34; 07/11/2011; stratum 2). Jug with cutaway spout, rim. L. 4.70; w. 4.90; th. 0.50–0.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part incurving neck with upright round rim; rim is horizontally uneven, forming a spout. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 101–102, 110, 131, pls. 24:ε57–ε59, 37:ζ69, ζ70, ζ72–ζ74, 30:η80, 33:μ40; 1972c, 249, pls. 72:D47, 73:D64–D68. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P138 (T.4; 401.2.1; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 19). Jug with cutaway spout, trefoil type, rim. L. 4.20; w. 3.30; th. 0.60 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6. red. Part of spreading neck with slightly flaring round rim; rim horizontally forms a curve. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 200, pl. 57:ω293; Tournavitou 2014, 71, 381, fig. 47:K591, pl. 13:K591. Date: LM IB. P139 (T.4; 401.2.3; 07/19/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 19). Jug with cutaway spout, trefoil type, rim. L. 3.70; w. 3.00; th. 0.60 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of spreading neck with flaring round rim; rim becomes everted and horizontally forms a curve. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 200, pl. 57:ω293; Tournavitou 2014, 71, 381, fig. 47:K591, pl. 13:K591. Date: LM IB.

Ewers The ewers have a flat base, a piriform to ovoid-conical body shape, a spreading neck, a flaring or everted rim with a vertical handle, and a round rim. This shape was introduced at Kastri in the MM IIIB phase and was developed throughout the LM I phase, and it is found equally at the settlement and

POTTERY

the tombs there (Coldstream 1972b, 281–282, 287, 295; 1972c, fig. 89:E44; Bevan et al. 2002, 80). There are five examples of this shape attested at Leska (Table 4; P140–P144), all of which are rims. Two were recovered from T.4: P140, of Red Micaceous clay, which includes shallow finger impressions on the external rim (Fig. 9; Pl. 19); and P144, of Mudstone fabric, which has external monochrome black paint (Fig. 9). Three more were found in T.3 (P141–P143; Fig. 9), all of which had Mudstone fabric. Similar specimens have been identified in the tombs at Kastri as well as at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Coldstream 1972c, 249, fig. 89:E44, pl. 78:E44; Bevan et al. 2002, 80, fig. 14:11; Tournavitou 2014, 379, 385, figs. 46:K565, 49:K610), and others come from the kiln area of LM IA Kommos (Van de Moortel 2001, 58, 79–80, fig. 36:47–49), MM IIIB and LM IA Palaikastro (Knappett and Cunningham 2003, 130, 179, fig. 20:176; Knappett et al. 2007, 180, 212, fig. 33:203), and MM III–LM I Knossos (Catling et al. 1979, 21, fig. 16:8). Example P140 also belongs to the first variation of type 1 ewers identified by Tournavitou (2014, 67–68), with a high neck and dated to the MM III–LM I period (Fig. 9; Pl. 19), while P141 and P142 belong to the second variation of this type, which have short necks and are dated from Kastri parallels only to the MM IIIB phase (Fig. 9). Parallels of these examples come also from MM IIIB Palaikastro, where one example had a ridge on the base of the neck (Knappett et al. 2007, 212, fig. 33:203). The close similarities between the shapes of the rims from Leska and Kastri suggest a LM IA date for most of the Leska rims, while two could belong in MM IIIB (P141, P142). P140 (T.4; 401.2.9; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9; Pl. 19). Ewer, rim. L. 5.50; w. 4.50; th. 0.90–1.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of incurving body with everted round rim; ext. lip shallow finger impressions. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 249, fig. 89:E44, pl. 78:E44; Bevan et al. 2002, 80, fig. 14:11; Tournavitou 2014, 67–68, 379, 385, figs. 46:K565, 49:K610. Date: MM III–LM IA. P141 (T.3; 301.1.8; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9). Ewer, rim. L. 4.50; w. 3.50; th. 0.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of spreading neck with simple round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 249, fig. 89:E44, pl. 78:E44; Bevan et al. 2002, 80, fig. 14:11; Tournavitou 2014, 67–68, 379, 385, figs. 46:K565, 49:K610. Date: MM III–LM IA. P142 (T.3; 301.3.21; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9). Ewer, rim. L. 5.40; w. 5.40; th. 0.90–1.00 cm. Mudstone

65

fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of spreading neck with flaring round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 249, fig. 89:E44, pl. 78:E44; Bevan et al. 2002, 80, fig. 14:11; Tournavitou 2014, 67–68, 379, 385, figs. 46:K565, 49:K610. Date: MM IIIB. P143 (T.3; 301.2.12; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9). Ewer, rim. L. 2.90; w. 3.10; th. 0.70–0.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of spreading neck with simple round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 249, fig. 89:E44, pl. 78:E44; Bevan et al. 2002, 80, fig. 14:11; Tournavitou 2014, 67–68, 379, 385, figs. 46:K565, 49:K610. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P144 (T.4; 401.A.2.1; 07/19/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 9). Ewer, rim. L. 5.30; w. 6.50; th. 0.70–0.90 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of cylindrical short neck with flaring rim ending in rectangular lip; ext. black monochrome paint. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 249, fig. 89:E44, pl. 78:E44; Bevan et al. 2002, 80, fig. 14:11; Tournavitou 2014, 67–68, 379, 385, figs. 46:K565, 49:K610. Date: MM IIIB.

Low-Spouted Jugs This shape is a jug with a flat base, straight walls on the lower body and a slightly incurving upper body with a rim, a vertical handle, and a spout. This is a relatively common shape in the tombs near Kastri where they are called low-spouted jugs; the fabric is fine, Mudstone, or orange semicoarse, and the shape is dated in the LM IA phase (Coldstream 1972b, 287; 1972c, 239, 250–251, 255–256, 258, figs. 86:D49, 90:E57, E59, 91:E60, E61, E63, 93:J24, 94:K2). Two examples of the same shape have been recognized in the newer tombs from the same area; there they are made out of Mudstone fabric and attributed to the same period (Bevan et al. 2002, 66, 79–80, figs. 11, 16:9, 10). The examples of low-spouted jugs from Leska are represented by 16 sherds wherein the rim and/or spout is preserved (Table 4); two examples are cataloged below (P145, P146). Interestingly enough, the rim seems to be standardized in a slightly flaring triangular shape, which finds its closest parallels in a few LM IA hole-mouthed jars from Kastri (Coldstream 1972a, 89, 122, figs. 41:θ21, 55:ω89), MM III–LM IA Knossos (Catling et al. 1979, 32, 44, figs. 20:128, 29:208), and MM III–LM IA Palaikastro (Knappett and Cunningham 2003, fig. 18:169). At Leska, their fabric is almost equally Mudstone (7) and Red Micaceous (6), while fine (3) is less commonly attested. The shape and the different fabrics used in making this vessel follows the practices

66

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

already seen at Kastri, where this shape is more popular in the tombs than in the settlement. This vessel type and the examples from Leska should be dated to the LM IA phase based on the Kytherian parallels. Example P145 has a straight upper body and a strap handle below the rim (Fig. 10). This jug finds a parallel in tomb E of the Kastri cemetery dated LM IA, but the handle is ovoid rather than strap (Coldstream 1972c, 250, fig. 90:E59, pl. 79:E59). Example P146 is a rim made out of Mudstone fabric with an upright thickened rim and finds parallels in the LM IA Kastri tombs (Fig. 10; Coldstream 1972c, 250, 255, figs. 90:E57, 93:J22, pls. 79:E57, 81:J22; Bevan et al. 2002, 79–80, fig. 16:9, 10, pl. 1:d, e). This shape also finds parallels in collar-neck jugs from the kiln area of LM IA Kommos (Van de Moortel 2001, 56, fig. 35:41, 43, 45). The popularity of this jug is low (0.81%), partly due to the limited time period during which it was used. The distribution of this shape is more limited than that of other pottery types at Leska, with most recovered from T.3 (12) and single examples from T.1, T.2, T.4, and T.5 (Table 4). Within T.3, 10 were attested in context 301 and two in context 302, while overall from this trench the shape consists of ca. 1.00% of the diagnostic assemblage. P145 (T.1; 101.1.3; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Low-spouted jug, rim and handle. L. 3.90; w. 5.30; th. 0.50–0.60 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight body and straight round rim with vertical strap handle (3.00 x 1.00 cm). Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 250, fig. 90:E59, pl. 79:E59. Date: LM IA. P146 (T.3; 301.2.24; 07/07/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Low-spouted jug, rim. L. 6.60; w. 4.70; th. 0.50 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body and upright thickened rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 250, 255, figs. 90:E57, 93:J22, pls. 79:E57, 81:J22; Bevan et al. 2002, 79–80, fig. 16:9, 10, pl. 1:d, e. Date: LM IA.

Juglets The juglet is a small jug shape with a globular lower body, a vertical cylindrical handle, and an everted rim. They are recognized by their rim, small vertical handle with cylindrical section, and small curving belly. Juglets appear mainly from the MM III period and continue into the LM I phase (Betancourt 1985, 105, figs. 79:B, F, G, 94:A, B, F). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, they represent 0.56% of the diagnostic sherds, and they are the fourth most

common shape (Tournavitou 2000, 303; 2009, 216, figs. 18.2, 18.3:a; 2011, table 1; 2014, 93). Two intact juglets (P147, P148; Pl. 19), 15 rims, 17 handles, and five body sherds have been identified, comprising 1.97% of the diagnostic sherds (Table 4). This shape is not well represented in T.2 and T.4, but it is common in T.3 and T.6 and even more popular in T.1 and T.5. The two intact examples, P147 and P148, both with fine fabric and brown monochrome paint, were recovered during the survey. The vast majority of juglets from Leska are made out of a fine fabric, but there also were three examples made out of Red Micaceous clay. In one example the rim is round and slightly flaring (P149; Fig. 10); a similar specimen comes from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 438, fig. 77:K885). Two examples, P150 and P151, were made out of a fine fabric, and their necks and rims were preserved (Fig. 10); they find close parallels at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 437–438, fig. 77:K879, K880, K881, K885, K886). In two other examples, P152 and P153 (Fig. 10), the rim and attached handle were preserved, and these juglets also find parallels at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 437–438, fig. 77:K872, K873, K881, K883). A large number of juglets have been recovered at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, but they consist of a small percentage of the overall pottery assemblage (Sakellarakis 2013, 67). Still, they seem to be the most common shape among the miniature vessels from this peak sanctuary (Tournavitou 2000, 303; 2009, 216; 2014, 92). The use of different types of clay in manufacturing this type of vessel was also noted at this site, as well as the preference for monochrome decoration when examples were not unpainted (Tournavitou 2000, 303, fig. 2:ζ, η; 2009, 18.3:a). Parallels for these juglets have been recovered at LM IA and LM IB Hagia Eirene (Cummer and Schofield 1984, 51, 52, 72, 81, 86, 119, pls. 48:82, 92, 56:429–430, 60:688–689, 65:851, 81:1442), MM III–LM I Vrysinas (Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2010, 454, fig. 13:lower row; Flevaraki 2016, 170, pl. 53:13; Tzachili 2016, 111, pl. 22:40–44), LM IA Kommos (Betancourt 1990, pl. 88:1760), LM IA Knossos (Catling et al. 1979, 50, fig. 35:237), the MM III Alonaki building on Mt. Juktas (Karetsou and Mathioudaki 2012, 94, fig. 18), MM III–LM I Juktas (in handless and handled versions; Karetsou 1974, 238;

POTTERY

1978, 245, 255, fig. 13:6–7, pl. 167:β, δ), MM III–LM I Petsophas (Myres 1902–1903, 378–380), MM IIIA Gournos (with a slightly trefoil rim; Rethemiotakis 2009, 193, figs. 16.4:first row, left, 16.5:second row, middle), MM IIIA–IIIB Hagia Triada (Girella 2010, 287–288, fig. 90:12a, 12b, pls. 8:F5203, 13:F4852, F4983, 20D/51, 86:333, 336), MM III Gyristi (Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 257), and LM IA Palaikastro (Knappett and Cunningham 2003, fig. 45:438). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, similar juglets have been found dated to the MM IIB–LM IB period due to their longevity (Tournavitou 2014, 92–95, 437–446, figs. 77–79). Thus, this type of vessel at Leska is placed in the wider MM IIB–LM IB period. P147 (T.2; 201.1.1; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 19). Juglet, complete. L. 7.10; w. 6.30; th. 0.60 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Cylindrical base; round belly; spreading neck; simple round rim with vertical strap handle. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 438, fig.77:K885. Date: MM IIB–LM IB. P148 (T.2; 201.1.2; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 19). Juglet, complete. L. 7.30; w. 6.80; th. 0.60–0.70 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Cylindrical base; round belly; spreading neck; simple round rim with vertical strap handle. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 438, fig.77:K885. Date: MM IIB–LM IB. P149 (T.3; 301.3.16; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Juglet, rim. L. 1.50; w. 2.20; th. 0.60–0.70 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body with flaring round rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 438, fig.77:K885. Date: MM IIB–LM IB. P150 (T.3; 301.4.1; 07/15/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Juglet, rim. L. 2.70; w. 2.30; th. 0.60 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body with spreading neck and simple rim; rim flat on top with round lip; ext. brown monochrome paint preserved in places. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 437–438, fig.77:K879, K880, K881, K885, K886. Date: MM IIB–LM IB. P151 (T.3; 301.2.16; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Juglet, rim. L. 1.70; w. 2.30; th. 0.40 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body with spreading neck and slightly thickened flaring rim; rim flat on top with round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 437–438, fig.77:K879, K880, K881, K885, K886. Date: MM IIB–LM IB. P152 (T.3; 301.3.43; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Juglet, rim and handle. L. 1.70; w. 1.40; th. 0.60 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of straight rim and attached vertical handle with oval section. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 437–438, fig. 77:K872, K873, K881, K883. Date: MM IIB–LM IB.

67

P153 (T.6; 601.1.2; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Juglet, rim and handle. L. 1.30; w. 1.60; th. 0.40 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of rim and attached vertical handle with oval section (0.70 x 0.90 cm). Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 437–438, fig. 77:K872, K873, K881, K883. Date: MM IIB–LM IB.

Storage Vessels Storage vessels include two primary vase types, jars and pithoi, whose main function seems to be as containers of dry or liquid products. They appear not to be very popular at Leska, consisting of only ca. 4.20% of the diagnostic sherds, not counting bridge-spouted jars. There was no significant variation in the distribution of storage vases throughout the site, but they were commoner in T.3, T.4, and T.6—that is, the center of the site. Storage vessels could have been used for bringing produce or dry or liquid goods from settlements to Leska, either as offerings to the deity or deities along with their contents and/or for the use of their contents in ceremonies. These storage vessels also could have been connected to feasting, and after the consumption of all or part of their contents, they were left at the site as offerings. These types of vessels are attested in other peak sanctuaries as well, such as Atsipades, Karphi, Korakomouri, Filioremos, Traostalos, Vrysinas, Petsophas, Xykefalo, Juktas, and the Kophinas shrine (Peatfield 1992, 70; Jones 1999, table 6; Chryssoulaki 2001, 63; Tzachili 2003, 330–331; 2006, 32; 2016, 113–116, pls. 24–26; Kyriakidis 2005a, 133–134, table 9; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2011, 306). Jars At Leska, jars are closed containers found in a variety of shapes, most of which were small or medium in size. Bridge-Spouted Jars This type of jar has a piriform shape with a globular upper body, an incurving rim, a spout, and two small horizontal handles. Bridge-spouted jars appear in the Cretan pottery repertoire already from the EM III period (Betancourt 1985, fig. 34). At Kastri they appear in limited numbers in the MM IB–IIIA phase at the settlement, and they continue in MM IIIB, but they become scarce in the LM I period; bridge-spouted jars were not attested in

68

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

the Kastri tombs (Coldstream 1972b, 279, 281, 287, 295). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, they also appear during the MM IB–II phase, supporting the early date at Kastri, but they also occur in the Neopalatial period (Tournavitou 2000, 298–299, 302; 2011, table 1). There, four varieties have been identified according to the shape of the rim, one with an incurving plain-mouthed rim, one with an incurving rim with flattened ledge, one with an upright or slightly flaring rim, and one with a flaring squarish rim (Tournavitou 2014, 73). Bridge-spouted jars are known from other peak sanctuaries in Crete such as Atsipades, Traostalos, Juktas, Vrysinas, Gyristi, and possibly Korakomouri and the Kophinas shrine (Davaras 1974, 210; Peatfield 1992, 68, 70; 2007, 299; Morris and Peatfield 1995, 645–646; Chryssoulaki 2001, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, 133–134, table 9; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2010, 454, fig. 15:middle row; Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 257, fig. 7:κα, κβ; Tzachili 2016, 109–110, pl. 22:36–39). Although the shape is characterized as a jar and used as a container, its spout made it equally useful as a jug for pouring liquids into smaller vessels or even for libations. Additionaly, the general shape of the bridge-spouted jars is similar to that of low-spouted jugs; and for that reason they are considered alongside these jugs in the statistics. There are 27 rims of bridge-spouted jars identified at Leska, representing 1.36% of the total number of diagnostic sherds (Table 4); 17 examples are cataloged below (P154–P170). They were found in T.2 and T.3, but they were more common in T.4 and even more so in T.6. The vast majority (21) of examples of this shape are made out of Red Micaceous fabric, four are Mudstone, and two are fine. In one case (P154) the spout was found, but the rim is not well preserved enough to assign it to a specific variety (Pl. 19). The variety with incurving plain-mouthed rim is attested in examples P155 and P156 (Fig. 10), with parallels found at MM IIIA–IIIB Hagia Triada (Girella 2010, 263–264, fig. 80:6a, 6b, pl. 28:C20/167) and MM I–II Palaikastro (Knappett et al. 2007, fig. 7:29, 30, 33) in Crete, and at MM III Hagios Georgios sto Vouno on Kythera (Tournavitou 2014, 72, 406, fig. 59:K724). This type of bridge-spouted jar can be dated to the MM IIIA–IIIB period. The bridge-spouted jar variety with flattened ledge rim is seen in P157 and P158 and P159–P163, all of

which find parallels at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, and it can be dated to the MM IIIB–LM IB period (Figs. 10, 11; Pl. 19; Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 399, 402, figs. 56:K691, 58:K709). Jar P163 belongs to this variety, but it is considerably thicker than other examples and bears long parallel, oblique incisions under the rim. Parallels for this variety can be found at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 398, fig. 55:K685), MM IB–IIIB and LM IB Kastri (Coldstream 1972a, 96, 101, 109–110, 133, fig. 42:μ48), MH III–LH IIA Hagios Stefanos (Zerner 2008, figs. 5.2:1031, 5.47:2110), MM III–LM IA Nerokourou (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 309, figs. 45:286–293, 46:294–297, 48:342, 77:574), the LM IA Knossos South House (Mountjoy 2003, 66–67, fig. 4.7:73, 75, 76), MM IIIA–IIIB Hagia Triada (Girella 2010, 259–260, fig. 80:1), and LM IA–IB Kommos (Watrous 1992, 8, fig. 14:124). Jar P164 (Fig. 11) is another variety of bridgespouted jar, which has an everted lip. Parallels for this shape have been recovered at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and date from MM IIIB/LM IA–IB (Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 398–402, figs. 55:K683, 57:K699, K707, pl. 15:K707). The variety with upright or slightly flaring rim is represented at Leska by jars P165–P168, which find similarities with examples from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno that could be dated in the MM IIIB period when the shape is more popular, but the shape does continue until LM IB (Fig. 11; Pl. 19; Tournavitou 2014, 74, 399, 402, 403, 406, figs. 56:K692, K695, 57:K702, 58:K718, 59:K727, 60:K736, pl. 15:K702, K727). At the Knossos South House this bridge-spouted jar variety belongs to the transitional MM III–LM IA phase (Mountjoy 2003, 66–67, fig. 4.7:77). The fourth variety of bridge-spouted jar has a flaring squarish rim and is represented at Leska by P169 and P170, which find parallels at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and the Knossos South House and can be dated from the transitional MM IIIB/LM IA period to the LM IB phase (Fig. 11; Mountjoy 2003, 66–67, fig. 4.7:77; Tournavitou 2014, 75, 402, 403, 408, figs. 57:K707, 59:K722, 60:K731). Bridge-spouted jars at Leska tend to be small in size with thin walls, but there are a few exceptions like P163, which is medium in size and also has incised decoration (Fig. 11; Pl. 19). Chronologically, they date from the MM IIIA to LM IB phase. P154 (T.3; 301.3.53; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10; Pl. 19. Bridge-spouted jar, spout. L. 4.40; w. 4.50; th.

POTTERY

0.70–0.90 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of body with spout. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 74, 399, 402, 403, 406, figs. 56:K692, K695, 57:K702, 58:K718, 59:K727, 60:K736, p1.15:K702, K727. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P155 (T.3; 301.4.6; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 2.00; w. 2.10; th. 0.50–0.60 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 7.5YR 6/6, reddish yellow. Part of body with incurving plain-mouthed rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72, 406, fig. 59:K724. Date: MM IIIA–IIIB. P156 (T.3; 301.2.1; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 3.00; w. 2.20; th. 0.50–0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/8, yellowish red. Part of body with incurving plainmouthed rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72, 406, fig. 59:K724. Date: MM IIIA–IIIB. P157 (T.3; 301.3.1; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 2.90; w. 4.20; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 5YR 5/6, yellowish red; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of incurving body with flattened ledge rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 399, 402, figs. 56:K691, 58:K709. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P158 (T.3; 301.3.2; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 3.40; w. 3.40; th. 0.60 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 5YR 5/6, yellowish red; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of incurving body with flattened ledge rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 399, 402, figs. 56:K691, 58:K709. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P159 (T.3; 301.4.1; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 2.80; w. 4.10; th. 0.60–0.80; d. rim >20.00. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4, brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of incurving body with flattened ledge rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 399, 402, figs. 56:K691, 58:K709. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P160 (T.2; 202.2.3; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 10). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 4.50; w. 4.40; th. 0.50–0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving body with flattened ledge rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 399, 402, figs.56:K691, 58:K709. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P161 (T.6; 601.1.6; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11). Bridge-spouted jar. L. 2.70; w. 4.70; th. 0.60–0.90 cm. Gray Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of incurving body with flattened ledge rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 399, 402, figs. 56:K691, 58:K709. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P162 (T.3; 301.3.17; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 2.20; w. 3.90; th. 0.60–0.90 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving body with flattened ledge rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 399, 402, figs. 56:K691, 58:K709. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB.

69

P163 (T.4; 401.A.2.2; 07/19/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11; Pl. 19). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 5.40; w. 5.30; th. 0.90– 1.60 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body with flattened ledge rim; two shallow oblique incisions (L. 2.90; w. 0.10; depth 0.10 cm) start at rim and continue downward. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 96, 101, 109–110, 133, fig. 42:μ48; Tournavitou 2014, 398, fig. 55:K685. Date: MM IB–LM IB. P164 (T.4; 401.1.3; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 2.10; w. 2.50; th. 0.40 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving body and everted rim with round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 72–73, 398–402, figs. 55:K683, 57:K699, K707, p1. 15:K707. Date: MM IIIB/ LM IA–IB. P165 (T.3; 301.2.8; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11; Pl. 19. Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 5.40; w. 5.30; th. 0.90– 1.60 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body with spout; upright or slightly flaring rim with pointed-round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 74, 399, 402, 403, 406, figs. 56:K692, K695, 57:K702, 58:K718, 59:K727, 60:K736, p1. 15:K702, K727. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P166 (T.3; 301.2.11; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11; Pl. 19. Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 4.10; w. 5.10; th. 0.70– 0.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body with spout; upright rim with pointed-round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 74, 399, 402, 403, 406, figs. 56:K692, K695, 57:K702, 58:K718, 59:K727, 60:K736, p1. 15:K702, K727. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P167 (T.3; 301.2.25; 07/07/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 3.30; w. 5.70; th. 0.80 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body with spout; upright rim with pointed-round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 74, 399, 402, 403, 406, figs. 56:K692, K695, 57:K702, 58:K718, 59:K727, 60:K736, p1. 15:K702, K727. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P168 (T.3; 301.3.3; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 4.40; w. 4.50; th. 0.70–0.90 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of incurving body with spout; upright rim with pointed-round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 74, 399, 402, 403, 406, figs. 56:K692, K695, 57:K702, 58:K718, 59:K727, 60:K736, p1. 15:K702, K727. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P169 (T.4; 401.A.2.1; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11). Bridge-spouted jar, rim. L. 3.50; w. 4.40; th. 0.70–0.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of incurving body with flaring squarish rim rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 75, 402, 403, 408, figs. 57:K707, 59:K722, 60:K731. Date: MM IIIB/LM IA–IB. P170 (T.4; 401.2.1; 07/21/2011; stratum 2). Bridgespouted jar, rim. L. 3.00; w. 3.90; th. 0.60–0.80 cm. Red

70

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of incurving body with flaring squarish rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 75, 402, 403, 408, figs. 57:K707, 59:K722, 60:K731. Date: MM IIIB/LM IA–IB.

Hole-Mouthed Jars Hole-mouthed jars have a piriform body shape with an incurving upper part ending on an upright or slightly flaring round rim. The overall number of sherds belonging to this shape are 14, representing 0.71% of the total diagnostic assemblage (Table 4); eight examples are cataloged below (P171–P178). The fabric employed for this shape was mainly Red Micaceous (9) with some Mudstone (5). There is one variety of this jar type with unique relief decoration, so far known only at Leska. It has an external horizontal relief band below the rim with vertical incisions forming squares, while its thin walls suggest a small size. There are five such rims from Leska, one in two joining fragments, and all made out of a good quality Mudstone clay (P171–P175; Fig. 11; Pl. 19). They represent 0.71% of the total number of diagnostic sherds, and they were found only in T.3 and T.4. A parallel to the relief decoration, but on a hemispherical bowl, was found at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and dated to the earlier part of the Middle Bronze Age (Tournavitou 2014, 44, 325, fig. 17:K285). A similar type of relief decoration, though not in the form of a band, is also attested on the rim of a LM IB piriform jar from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2000, fig. 2:θ; 2011, 128–129, fig. 12:a; Sakellarakis 2011, 313, fig. 323), and at transitional MM III/LM IA Kommos (Betancourt 1990, pl. 95:1876). Based on the Kytherian parallels, a LM IB period for this type of jar at Leska is proposed. Other examples of the hole-mouthed jar shape include P176, which has incised decoration on the rim and finds parallels at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Fig. 11; Tournavitou 2014, 62, 355, fig. 30:K452). Two more examples with a similar rim arrangement, but without decoration (P177; P178; Fig. 12), find parallels at MH II–III Hagios Stefanos (Zerner 2008, 229, fig. 5.11:1165) and MM III–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 62, 356, fig. 32 K465, K467). P171 (T.3; 301.2.19; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11; Pl. 19). Hole-mouthed jar, rim. L. 3.10; w. 6.60; th. 0.50– 0.60 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body without neck;

upraised rim, almost square in section with slightly concave top; ext. lip relief decoration forms horizontal pattern of squares separated by vertical slash. Parallels: Tournavitou 2000, fig. 2:θ; 2011, 128–129, fig. 12:a; Sakellarakis 2011, 313, fig. 323. Date: LM IB. P172 (T.4; 401.1.9; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11; Pl. 19). Hole-mouthed jar, rim. L. 2.80; w. 2.90; th. 0.50– 0.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body without neck; upraised rim, almost square in section with slightly concave top; ext. lip relief decoration forms horizontal pattern of squares separated by vertical slash. Parallels: Tournavitou 2000, fig. 2:θ; 2011, 128–129, fig. 12:a; Sakellarakis 2011, 313, fig. 323. Date: LM IB. P173 (T.3; 301.3.56; 07/8/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 19). Hole-mouthed jar, body. L. 3.10; w. 6.60; th. 0.50–0.60 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body without neck; ext. lip relief decoration forms horizontal pattern of squares separated by vertical slash. Parallels: Tournavitou 2000, fig. 2:θ; 2011, 128–129, fig. 12:a; Sakellarakis 2011, 313, fig. 323. Date: LM IB. P174 (T.3; 301.1.13; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 19). Hole-mouthed jar, body. L. 2.70; w. 2.70; th. 0.60–0.70 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body without neck; ext. lip horizontal relief of pattern of squares separated by vertical slash. Parallels: Tournavitou 2000, fig.2:θ; 2011, 128– 129, fig. 12:a; Sakellarakis 2011, 313, fig. 323. Date: LM IB. P175 (T.4; 401.2.4; 07/20/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 19). Hole-mouthed jar, body. L. 1.50; w. 2.60; th. 0.60–0.70 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body without neck; ext. lip horizontal relief of pattern of squares separated by vertical slash. Parallels: Tournavitou 2000, fig. 2:θ; 2011, 128–129, fig. 12:a; Sakellarakis 2011, 313, fig. 323. Date: LM IB. P176 (T.3; 301.2.20; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 11). Hole-mouthed jar(?), rim. L. 1.50; w. 2.60; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving body with inward thickened rim; rim triangle in section and flat on top with round lip; ext. lip two oblique incised lines. Comments: hole-mouthed jar or tripod vessel. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 62, 355, fig. 30:K452. Date: MM III–LM I. P177 (T.3; 301.4.1; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12). Hole-mouthed jar, rim. L. 2.80; w. 3.30; th. 0.80–1.30 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving body Γ-shaped rim; rim concave on top with round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 62, 356, fig. 32:K465, K467. Date: MM III–LM I. P178 (T.3; 301.3.10; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12). Rim from a hole mouthed jar. L. 2.80; w. 3.30; th. 0.80– 1.30 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight body with everted rim; rim concave on top with round lip. Parallels:

POTTERY

Tournavitou 2014, 62, 356, fig. 32:K465, K467. Date: MM III–LM I.

Collar-Necked Jar This jar shape is small to medium in size and has a globular body with a short cylindrical neck below the rim. At Leska, the collar-necked jar is represented by only one cataloged diagnostic piece, P179, which is made out of fine clay (Table 4; Fig. 12). Similar examples are known from Hagios Georg­ ios sto Vouno, their decoration providing a MM IB– IIIB and a MM IIIB/LM IA or early LM IA date, respectively (Tournavitou 2014, 63, 352–355, 365, figs. 30:K450, 31:K456, 39:K514). At Kastri, they appear only in MM IA, an early phase at the settlement (Coldstream 1972a, 89, fig. 37:β74, β5). This shape appears to have a long lifespan on Kythera, but for the Leska example a general date within the MM IIIB–LM IA period would seem appropriate. P179 (T.3; 301.3.33; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12). Collar-necked jar, rim. L. 4.10; w. 4.60; th. 0.40–0.50 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of globular body and short cylindrical neck with simple round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 89, fig. 37:β74, β75; Tournavitou 2014, 63, 352–355, 365, figs. 30:K450, 31:K456, 39:K514. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. Wide-Mouthed Jars Wide-mouthed jars have a broader mouth than the previously discussed closed vessel shapes. They are represented by a small group at Leska, only six diagnostic sherds (P180–P185; Table 4). Example P180 has relief rope decoration externally under the rim, and it finds parallels with wide-mouthed jars at MM III–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno that also have relief rope decoration externally on the rim (Fig. 12; Pl. 19; Tournavitou 2014, 61, 355, fig. 380:K453, pl. 9:K453). Another example of this jar type is P181, but this small version had an external relief band under the rim without any decorative motif (Fig. 12). The shape of this jar is closer to an example from MM III–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 356, 358, figs. 32:K468, 33:K476). In the same category belong P182–P184, all of which have an incurving upper body ending in a thickened round rim, although the first ends inward, the second is straight, and the third is upright (Fig. 12). Examples similar to P182 have been found at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 363, fig. 36:K494) and at the settlement of Kastri,

71

where the same shape with a different rim has been attested, dated in the MM IIIB phase (Coldstream 1972a, 104, fig. 38:ε92). The fabric of this jar and the aforementioned Kastri example point toward a MM IIIB or broader MM IIIB–LM IA date for P182. Example P183 finds a close parallel at MM IIIB–LM IA Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Fig. 12; Tournavitou 2014, 355–356, fig. 31:K461, pl. 9:K461), and a parallel for P184 comes from MM III–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Fig. 12; Tournavitou 2014, 356, fig. 32:K470, pl. 10:K470). There is also one wide-mouthed jar from Leska that has a curving body that ends in a Γ-shaped rim P185 (Fig. 12). Analogous examples have been noted at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 356, fig. 32:K467) and in a MM IIIB–LM IA pithos with almost the same type of rim at the settlement of Kastri (Coldstream 1972a, 114, fig. 40:ζ149). P180 (T.4; 401.2.2; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12; Pl. 19. Wide-mouthed jar, rim. L. 4.40; w. 9.60; th. 0.80– 0.90 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4– 5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of upper body and everted rim with round lip; ext. lip shallow horizontal finger impressions; two joining pieces. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 61, 355, fig. 380:K453, pl. 9:K453. Date: MM III–LM I. P181 (T.1; 101.1.1; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12). Wide-mouthed jar, rim. L. 2.00; w. 2.60; th. 0.50–0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of slightly incurving body with upright rim; ext. horizontal band under rim, no discernable. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 356, 358, figs. 32:K468, 33:K476. Date: MM III–LM I. P182 (T.3; 301.3.5; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12). Wide-mouthed jar, rim. L. 4.00; w. 6.10; th. 0.90–1.30 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving body with thickened simple round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 104, fig. 38:ε92; Tournavitou 2014, 363, fig. 36:K494. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P183 (T.4; 401.1.7; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12). Wide-mouthed jar, rim. L. 3.20; w. 2.60; th. 1.00–1.10 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of slightly incurving body with slightly thickened, simple round rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 355–356, fig. 31:K461, pl. 9:K461. Date: MM IIIB– LM IA. P184 (T.3; 302.3.1; 07/08/2011; stratum 2a; Fig. 12). Wide-mouthed jar, rim. L. 3.40; w. 4.80; th. 0.90–1.20 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving body with thickened rim; rim flat on top with round rim. Parallels:

72

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Tournavitou 2014, 356, fig. 32:K470, pl. 10:K470. Date: MM III–LM I. P185 (T.3; 301.3.6; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12). Wide-mouthed jar, rim. L. 3.40; w. 4.80; th. 0.90–1.20 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of incurving body with thickened Γ-shaped rim; rim flat on top with round lip. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 114, fig.40:ζ149; Tournavitou 2014, 62, 356, fig. 32:K465, K467. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA.

Piriform Jars This shape has a curved body and a cylindrical neck with a flaring rim. There are only three examples of piriform jars identified at Leska (P186– P188; Table 4). Interestingly, this vessel type was not recovered at the settlement or cemetery of Kastri, but rather only at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno where a ritual use has been tentatively proposed (Tournavitou 2014, 66–67). Jar P186 is comprised of two joining pieces, part of a rim and neck. This piriform jar finds largersized parallels at MM IIIB–LM IB Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Fig. 12; Pl. 19; Tournavitou 2014, 375, fig. 44:K551). Jar P187 is a flat base with a torus made out of fine fabric with similar examples found at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, one of MM IIIB date and one possibly LM IB (Fig. 12; Tournavitou 2014, 375–379, fig. 45:K559, K561). Jar P188 is part of the upper body and lowest part of the neck of a stirrup jar that bears a relief ring (Fig. 12; Pl. 19). Similar examples have been noted mainly during the LM IB period at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 67, 375, figs. 44:K554–K556, K558, pls. 20:K830, 12:K554– K556, K558). The majority of the Hagios Georgios sto Vouno examples are dated to LM IB on the basis of their decoration, but a few MM IIIB examples also exist. Thus, only a general MM IIIB–LM IB date can be proposed for the Leska examples, possibly closer to the latter. P186 (T.3, T.4; 302.4.1, 4.401.2.1; 07/14/2011, 07/17/2011; stratum 2a; Fig. 12; Pl. 19). Piriform jar, rim. L. 7.40; w. 14.40; th. 1.10–1.20 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray; int. 7.5YR 5/4, brown. Part of slightly curving body; short cylindrical neck; flaring triangular rim with round lip; ext. rim relief of horizontal pattern of squares(?); two joining pieces. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 375, fig. 44:K551. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P187 (T.3, T.4; 301.2.26, 401.2.1; 07/14/2011, 07/17/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12). Piriform jar, base. L. 3.60; w. 5.6; th. 0.80–1.10; d. base 16.00 cm. Fine fabric;

ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of flat base with protruding round-square edge; curving body. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 375–379, fig. 45:K559, K561. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P188 (T.3; 301.3.42; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12; Pl. 19). Piriform jar, body. L. 2.70; w. 4.50; th. 0.80–1.10 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of curving body with straight neck; horizontal cylindrical relief body joins neck. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 427, figs. 44:K554–K555, 45:K556–K558, p1.20:K830, p1.12:K554–K556, K558. Date: LM IB.

Jug/Amphora This generic category of sherds may belong to either jugs or amphorae. A similar category of vessels has been recognized at Hagios Goergios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014). There are 12 such examples from Leska, most of which were made out of Mudstone (7) fabric, a few of Red Micaceous (3), and two of fine (Table 4); 10 examples are cataloged below (P189–P198). Example P189 is the neck and rim of a vessel with an incurving upper body, a short cylindrical neck, and a flaring rim, all characteristics that describe both jugs and amphorae (Fig. 12). Similar examples come from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno dated to the MM IIIB phase (Tournavitou 2014, 68, 384, fig. 48:K600), MM IIIB Kastri (Coldstream 1972a, nos. ζ75, ε73; 1972c, no. D60), LM I Nerokourou (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 48.333), and MM III and LM IA Kommos (Betancourt 1990, fig. 29.614; Shaw et al. 2001, fig. 36.47:K586, K598, K606, K610). A date in MM IIIB for this vessels shape is proposed based on the Kytherian parallels. Examples P190–P198 have a spreading neck and a flaring round rim (Figs. 12, 13; Pl. 20). Similar examples have been found at MM IIIB or LM IA phase Kastri (Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12) and MM IIIB–LM IA Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379– 380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12: K565, K576, 13:K597). Thus, a date between the MM IIIB and LM IA phases seems appropriate for these vessels at Leska. From the available examples, two of which are cataloged, four are decorated with monochrome paint, three black (P190, P193), and one brown. P189 (T.3; 301.3.20; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 15). Jug/amphora, rim. L. 3.70; w. 3.30; th. 0.50–0.70 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown.

POTTERY

Part of incurving upper body with short cylindrical neck and a flaring rim; rim ends at round lip. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, nos. ζ75, ε73; 1972c, no. D60; Tournavitou 2014, 68, 384, fig. 48:K600. Date: MM IIIB. P190 (T.4; 401.1.3; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 12; Pl. 20). Jug/amphora, rim. L. 4.10; w. 3.50; th. 0.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of spreading neck and flaring, simple round rim. Ext. black monochrome paint preserved in places. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12:K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P191 (T.3; 302.3.1; 07/08/2011; stratum 2a). Jug/ amphora, rim. L. 2.60; w. 3.20; th. 1.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of spreading neck and flaring simple round rim; uneven rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12: K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P192 (T.3; 301.2.7; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Jug/ amphora, rim. L. 2.10; w. 2.50; th. 1.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of spreading neck and flaring simple round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12:K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P193 (T.3; 301.2.14; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Jug/amphora, rim. L. 4.00; w. 5.40; th. 0.90 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of spreading neck with upright, simple round rim. Ext. black monochrome Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12:K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P194 (T.3; 301.3.4; 07/08/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Jug/amphora, rim. L. 5.50; w. 4.10; th. 0.80–0.90 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of spreading neck with flaring, simple round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12:K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P195 (T.3; 303.1.2; 07/09/2011; stratum 1; Fig. 13). Jug/amphora, rim. L. 3.60; w. 2.90; th. 0.70–0.80 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of spreading neck with flaring, simple round rim. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12:K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P196 (T.6; 601.1.3; 07/20/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Jug/amphora, rim and handle. L. 2.70; w. 5.20; th. 0.80– 0.90 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4,

73

very pale brown. Part of spreading neck and flaring, simple round rim with genesis of vertical handle; handle oval in section (1.8 x 2.6 cm). Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12:K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB. P197 (T.6; 601.W.2.3; 07/20/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Jug/amphora, rim and handle. L. 2.80; w. 3.50; th. 1.00 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of almost straight neck and rim with a genesis of vertical handle attached externally on rim; handle oval in section (1.90 x 2.50 cm). Parallels: Coldstream 1972b, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12:K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB– LM IB. P198 (T.4; 401.1.4; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Jug/amphora, rim and handle. L. 3.80; w. 2.90; th. 0.90 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight rim with vertical handle attached externally on rim; handle oval in section. Parallels: Coldstream 1972c, 235, fig. 85:D12, pl. 70:D12; Tournavitou 2014, 69, 379–380, 384, figs. 46:K565, K570, K576, 48:K597, pls. 12:K565, K576, 13:K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB.

Oval-Mouthed Amphorae The oval-mouthed amphora is a common storage and transport vessel shape with a large curving body, a spreading neck, and an oval-mouthed rim, which has two vertical handles, the sections of which vary from cylindrical to strap. Amphorae were popular already from the MM III phase until the end of LM I (Betancourt 1985, 105). This shape appears rarely at the settlement of Kastri during the LM IA phase, where examples are made out of Mudstone clay (Coldstream 1972a, 120; 1972b, 287), while at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno they are difficult to separate from jugs in the sherd material (Tournavitou 2014, 67–72). A few amphorae also were recovered at the peak sanctuary of Vrysinas in Crete (Tzachili 2003, 330; 2006, 116, pl. 26:64– 68; Kyriakidis 2005a, 133–134, table 9; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2010, 454, fig. 15:upper row). There are only two definite examples of amphorae from Leska: P199 from T.3, and P200 from T.4 (Table 4; Fig. 13; Pl. 20). Both are made out of Mudstone fabric. Example P199 has a handle with cylindrical section and P200 has two vertical handles that are oval in section. Similar parallels have been recovered at MM III–LM IA Nerokourou (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 312–313, fig. 62:474, 476),

74

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

MM III–LM IA Knossos (Catling et al. 1979, 25, figs. 20:58, 25:159, 26:158, 35:232), the LM I Psychro cave (Watrous 2004, 135, fig. 1:46), LM IA–IB Kommos (Betancourt 1990, fig. 15:145–146), and MM III–LM IB Palaikastro (Sackett and Popham 1970, 221, fig. 14:NP28, NP118, NP140; Knappett and Cunningham 2003, figs. 36:299, 37:298). Parallels are also known from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, most of which seem to be smaller versions and one slightly larger, and they can be attributed to MM IIIB–LM IA amphorae like the examples from Leska (Tournavitou 2014, 69, 380–381, 384, figs. 46:K576, 47:K582, K590, 48:K597, pls. 12:K576, K582, 13:K590, K597). The Mudstone fabric that was used at Leska and the parallel from Kastri would suggest a broader MM IIIB–LM IA date, with a preference for the latter phase. P199 (T.3; 301.1.5; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Amphora, rim and handle. L. 2.70; w. 3.60; th. 0.90 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 7.5YR 6/4, light brown. Part of spreading neck and flaring simple round rim; vertical handle on the ext. rim; handle cylindrical in section (d. 2.10 cm). Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 69, 380–381, 384, figs. 46:K576, 47:K582, K590, 48:K597, pls. 12:K576, K582, 13:K590, K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA. P200 (T.2; 401.2.2; 07/20/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13; Pl. 20). Amphora, rim and handle. L. 4.00; w. 7.60; th. 0.70–0.90 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of spreading neck and flaring simple round rim; trefoil-like overall rim shape; genesis of vertical handle just below rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 69, 380–381, 384, figs. 46:K576, 47:K582, K590, 48:K597, pls. 12:K576, K582, 13:K590, K597. Date: MM IIIB–LM IA.

Neckless Jars with Everted Rims This large jar shape has a tub-shaped or slightly curving body, no neck, and a thickened everted rim with either a round or squarish lip. The neckless jar with everted rim was a general jar type in use during MM II–LM I at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 58–59). Two main varieties have been identified there, one with a squarish rim and one with a round rim, both equally common. This shape also was recognized at the peak sanctuary of Vrysinas in Crete (Tzachili 2016, 118– 120, pls. 27, 28). At Leska, the neckless jar with round rim appears to be more popular than the squarish variety. A total of 49 diagnostic sherds belong to this shape, representing 2.47% of the diagnostic assemblage (Table 4); 10 examples are cataloged below

(P201–P210). The vast majority had Red Micaceous fabric, while only three had Mudstone and one fine (not cataloged). Finger impressions were the most common decorative method, applied externally on the rim or just below it on seven occasions (P206–P208, P210). The thickness of the walls of these jars ranged mainly between 0.90 and 1.00 cm, while only a few are as thick as 1.20 cm. Although they are considerably smaller, the neckless jar with everted rim follows similar pithoi and pithoid shapes common at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 355, 358, 362). The neckless jar with round rim is more common at Leska, as in the case of P201, which finds parallels at MM IIIB–LM IA Kastri (Fig. 13; Coldstream 1972a, 114, fig. 40:z148) and at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 358, 362, figs. 33:K473, 35:K486, pl. 10:K473). Example P202 has a similar shape and finds a parallel at MM II– LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Fig. 13; Tournavitou 2014, 355, 358, figs. 31:K460, 33:K473, 34:K479, pl. 10:K473, K479). Jar P203 has a rounder shape than a similar example from MM II–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno that is more square in form (Tournavitou 2014, 356, fig. 32:K462). Examples P204 and P205 find a parallel at MM II–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno identified as a pithoid jar or a cooking vessel (Fig. 14; Tournavitou 2014, 364, fig. 39:K511). Due to the thickness of P204 at Leska, however, a pithoid jar may be a more appropriate identification. Additionally, P206 is a smaller version of the pithos with a very round rim, but it belongs to the neckless jar type and finds parallels at MM II–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Fig. 14; Pl. 20; Tournavitou 2014, 61, 358, fig. 34:K478, pl. 10:K478). Similarly, P207 and P208 (Fig. 14; Pl. 20) find parallels with a larger example at MM III–LM IA Nerokourou (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, fig. 70:521) and another at MM II–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 358, 363, 364, figs. 33:K473 34:K479, 37:499, 38:K510, pl. 10:K473, K479, K499). Jar P208 is closer to examples from MM II–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 362–364, figs. 36:K489, 37:K495, 38:K510). In the variety of neckless jars with squarish rims belong P209 and P210 (Fig. 14; Pl. 20), which find parallels at MM III–LM IA Nerokourou (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, fig. 70:524) and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 58, 362–363, fig.

POTTERY

36:K492, K493, pl. 10:K492, K493). At Kastri they appeared in the MM IIIB phase and became very popular in the LM I phase (Tournavitou 2014, 58, 194 n. 746). A number of neckless jars from Leska feature decoration consisting of finger impressions on the external part of the lip, which is the most common (P206, P207, P210), while there is also an example with a rope band below the rim (P209). P201 (T.4; 401.1.2; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 3.00; w. 3.90; th. 0.90–1.20 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of upper body with everted rim; rim flat on top with elongated round lip. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 114, fig. 40:z148; Tournavitou 2014, 358, 362, fig. 33:K473, 35:K486, p1. 10:K473. Date: MM IIIB– LM IA. P202 (T.4; 401.2.3; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 5.60; w. 3.30; th. 0.70–1.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–8/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of upper body with everted rim; rim flat on top with thick round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 355, 358, fig. 31:K460, fig. 33:K473, fig. 34:K479, p1. 10:K473, K479. Date: MM II–LM I. P203 (T.3; 301.1.12; 7/04/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 13). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 3.10; w. 4.80; th. 1.10–1.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of an upper body with thickened everted rim; rim slightly concave on top with thick round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 356, fig. 32:K462. Date: MM II–LM I. P204 (T.3; 301.2.28; 07/07/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 14). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 2.80; w. 5.00; th. 1.10 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of upper body with thickened everted rim; rim flat on top with thick round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 364, fig. 39:K511. Date: MM II–LM I. P205 (T.3; 303.3.3; 07/09/2011; stratum 1; Fig. 14). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 3.70; w. 7.10; th. 0.90–1.10 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight body with everted rim; rim flat on top with round lip. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 364, fig. 39:K511. Date: MM II–LM I. P206 (T.7; 701.1.1; 07/19/2011; stratum 1; Fig. 4; Pl. 20). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 4.30; w. 4.40; th. 0.90– 1.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4– 5/6, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of upper body with round rim; ext. lip shallow finger impressions. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 61, 358, fig. 34:K478, pl. 10:K478. Date: MM II–LM I. P207 (T.4; 401.2.1; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 14; Pl. 20). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 6.90; w. 10.80; th. 1.00–1.20; max. d. rim 34.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/9, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of upper body

75

with everted rim; rim flat on top with thick round lip; rim becomes thicker, possibly demarcating genesis of vertical handle or decoration. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 358, 363, 364, fig. 33:K473 34:K479, 37:499, 38:K510, p1. 10:K473, K479, K499. Date: MM II–LM I. P208 (T.3; 301.2.21; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 14). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 2.80; w. 3.00; th. 1.00–2.20 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight body with everted rim; rim with slightly concave top and round lip; ext. lip two finger impressions. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 362–364, figs. 36:K489, 37:K495, 38:K510. Date: MM II–LM I. P209 (T.3; 301.4.5; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 14; Pl. 20). Neckless/pithoid jar. L. 3.10; w. 5.00; th. 0.90–1.20; d. rim >30.00 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 2.5YR 4/6–5/6, red. Part of body and everted rim with almost square lip and flat top; ext. horizontal relief band with rope decoration under rim. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 58, 362–363, fig. 36:K492, K493, pl. 10:K492, K493. Date: MM IIIB–LM I. P210 (T.3; 301.2.4; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 16; Pl. 20). Neckless/pithoid jar, rim. L. 2.70; w. 3.80; th. 0.80 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of body and everted rim with almost convex top and square lip; ext. lip two finger impressions. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 58, 362–363, fig. 36:K492, K493, pl. 10:K492, K493. Date: MM IIIB–LM I.

Collar-Necked Pithos A pithos with a slightly curving body and a wide mouth with thickened rim has been recovered at Leska (P211; Fig. 14). It is collared and shortnecked, and it has a thickened Γ-shaped rim with a flat vertical lip. This is a rare shape at Leska, since medium- and large-sized closed vessels were not preferred locally (Table 4). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, small-sized pithoi are relatively common, with wall thicknesses varying between 1.00 and 1.70 cm (Tournavitou 2014, 58–61). Pithoi do occasionally appear at peak sanctuaries, like at Vrysinas where they are large in size as suggested by the thickness of their walls (Tzachili 2016, 125–129, pl. 32). A larger-sized parallel to P211 is found at MM II–LM I Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 58, 356, fig. 32:K463, pl. 9:K463). P211 (T.3; 301.4.4; 07/13/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 14). Collar-necked pithos, rim. L. 2.40; w. 3.60; th. 1.00– 1.20; d. rim >20.00 cm. Gray Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of body, collared neck, and Γ-shaped rim; rim everted with round lip and flat top. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 58, 356, fig. 32:K463, pl. 9:K463. Date: MM II–LM I.

76

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Handles A total of 126 handles that cannot be attributed with certainty to specific shapes have been found at Leska, and thus they have not been included in the statistics, since they could belong to different categories of vessel; two example are cataloged below (P212, P213). They belonged to closed vases, including cooking vessels, jugs, jars, and pithoi, with the majority horizontal (81) and fewer vertical (45). Most were made with Red Micaceous clay (100), some with Mudstone (19), and a few with fine (7). Their shapes include strap, ovoid, oval, and cylindrical, with the first two being the most common. Most of the horizontal handles made of Red Micaceous ware (71), irrespective of shape, could be attributed to tripod cooking vessels. Moreover, the Mudstone and fine ware examples (26) could be more easily related to jugs and a few examples of jars. From this group, four cylindrical mudstone handles (not cataloged) could be associated more with the bridge-spouted jar than any other vase type. The rest are difficult to assign to any specific shape or category of vessel. A special category among the handles recovered at Leska is the push-through variety. There are four horizontal handles from stratum 2 of T.3, two of which are illustrated (P212, P213; Pl. 20), as well as the body of a jar with either a hole cut through it or the negative evidence of a handle that has broken off (P118; Pl. 20). Two of the handles belong to smaller, finer vessels (not cataloged; one could have been from a mainland-imitating or imported shape such as a kantharos/deep bowl) and have cylindrical shapes, while the other two possibly belong to jars. On the mainland at Nichoria horizontal and vertical handles from jars belong to the MH II phase (Howell 1992, 60, 106, 108, 111, figs. 3-47:P2522, 3-53:P2565, 2566, 3-57:P2624, pls. 3-27:P2523, 3-30:P2565, 2566, 3-34:P2624). At Menelaion, a few examples of horizontal push-through handles from jars belong to the broader Middle Helladic period (Catling 2009, 329–330, fig. 250:AM71, AM73). From Hagios Stefanos there is a MH II jar with a horizontal oval-shaped handle, three jars with horizontal cylindrical-shaped handles, two MH III early and one MH III late, one vertical handle from a MH III/LH I jug, one vertical cylindrical-shaped handle from a MH I late jar or jug, a vertical handle from a MH III early jug made with Minoan clay, and a LH

I–IIA jug with a vertical cylindrical-shaped handle (Zerner 2008, figs. 5.8:1134, 5.21.1387, 5.23:1452, 5.32:1718, 5.43:1948, 1962, 5.47:2105, 5.48:2116). Push-through handles were found at Hagios Stef­ anos during the Middle Helladic period: in jugs they are attested in MH I and II, but not in MH III, while in jars they are attested throughout the Middle Helladic period (Zerner 2008, 201, 204). In the Minoan Red Micaceous vessels from this site, the handle techniques were unclear, but it seems that in some cases holes were cut in the body and the handle inserted, and the handle did not protrude into the interior (Zerner 2008, 204). The same technique was attested in contemporary Dull Painted Ware, Yellow Minyan, and Matt Painted (Zerner 2008, 194, 197, 206). Aeginetan vessels also had pushthrough handles throughout the Middle Helladic period, but this practice was terminated at its end (Zerner 2008, 210). On Kythera, at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, pushthrough handles were noted in a pithoid or cooking vessel with vertical handle and also in a jug or amphora (Tournavitou 2014, 370, 396, figs. 41:K536, 54:K669). At Kastri they are reported only in a MM IA context, the γ deposit, and all belong to large vessels (i.e. jars and jugs). This handle-making technique is closer to mainland Greek practices attested from EH II until the Middle Helladic period (Coldstream 1972a, 93, 278, pl. 21:γ25, γ26; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 261, fig. 6b). The same MM IA date is given to a few push-through handles recovered in the Antikythera survey, based on their fabric and the Kastri dating sequence (Bevan and Conolly 2013, 65, pl. 6:b, c). Their different fabrics provide a wider range of chronology, however, covering the late Prepalatial and Protopalatial phases (Pentedeka et al. 2010, 61, 69–71, figs. 8:50–52, 10:72, 11:82, 12:88). Furthermore, a Protopalatial horizontal push-through handle of sand-tempered fabric was found close to the tholos tombs, typical of the Kastri γ deposit (Bevan et al. 2002, 87, pl. 6:b). It seems that the push-through handle technique possibly continued in smaller numbers after the MM IA period, well into the Protopalatial period, parallel to neighboring mainland pottery making traditions. P212 (T.3; 301.3.55; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Closed vessel, push-through handle. L. 6.60; w. 5.10 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4– 5/6, brown to strong brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of pushed-through vertical strap handle

POTTERY

(2.30 x 4.00 cm). Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 111–116, 355–356, fig. 31:K461, pl. 9:K461. Date: MM II–LM I. P213 (T.4; 401.2.3; 07/20/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Closed vessel, push-through handle. L. 6.50; d. handle 1.80–2.10 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown; core Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Part of pushed-through vertical handle with cylindrical section. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 111–116, 355–356, fig. 31:K461, pl. 9:K461. Date: MM II–LM I.

Decorated Vessels This broad category includes many types of decoration, including painted, monochrome, plastic, relief, knobs, incisions, and ridges. Decorated vessels of almost all shapes have been identified, and overall they represent ca. 5.70% of the diagnostic sherd assemblage at Leska. Painted Decoration As discussed in the fabric section (pp. 34–39), the preservation of painted sherds in the Leska ceramic assemblage is very poor. In the analysis of the diagnostic sherds, however, the monochrome and painted sherds represent the most common forms of decoration (ca. 5.70%). This percentage is very low when compared with the 20.62% identified at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 129), thus emphasising the high degree of postdepositional degradation observed on the sherds from Leska. In almost all examples at Leska, painted decoration consists of monochrome paint applied on the surface, with, in order of popularity, black (61), brown (58), and red (7) color. This decoration is believed to be the result of firing the diluted clay applied on the surface of the vessels, as proposed for the Kastri material by Coldstream (1972b, 282). The majority of examples from Leska are of fine fabric, some are Mudstone, and in one case Red Micaceous. The latter fabric has not been recognized in the assemblage of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 129). The most common shape on which monochrome paint has been identified at Leska is the straight-sided cup. After that, in order of popularity, come the conical cups, the hemispherical cups, the jars, the conical bowls, the juglets, the kalathoi, the tripod vases, and a single bowl and jug. The majority were recovered primarily from T.3 and secondarily from T.4, and only a few have been found in T.2, T.5, T.6, and Cairn 2. In almost all cases the monochrome

77

paint was observed only externally, but there was one example where only the interior was painted. There are only six cases in which both the exterior and interior of a sherd had monochrome decoration, mainly in black and less in brown. These examples are all open vessels: two conical cups, two straight-sided cups, one conical bowl, and one tripod vase. The use of monochrome paint on the interior of open vessels is considered to be a MM IIIB practice following Cretan prototypes, and it is a trend that died out in the LM I phase (Coldstream 1972b, 282–283, 289). There is only one example, a tripod cooking vessel of Red Micaceous fabric (P112), which had red paint applied externally and black paint internally. The only sherd recognized with a painted pattern was part of the neck of a jug made out of fine fabric, on which a small number of dots arranged in a linear oblique fashion was preserved (P214; Pl. 20). This motif is typical of the LM IB decorative repertoire identified on Kythera, at Kastri and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, as well as in contemporary Crete (Coldstream 1972a, pls. 32:λ13, 33:μ35, 53:ω122, ω127, ω142, 54:ω185, ω190, 56:ω240; 1972b, 297, pl. 80:J12; Tournavitou 2014, 127, 501–503, fig. 11, pl. 35:K1250, K1265). P214 (T.4; 401.1.9; Date: 11.7.2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Jug. L. 2.20; w. 2.10; th. 0.50–0.60 cm. Fine fabric; ext. 10YR 7/4, very pale brown; core 7.5YR 6/6, reddish yellow. Part of neck and rim; ext. black dots form oblique line. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, pls. 32:λ13, 33:μ35, 53:ω122, ω127, ω142, 54:ω185, ω190, 56:ω240; 1972b, 297, pl. 80:J12; Tournavitou 2014, 127, 501–503, fig. 11, pl. 35:K1250, K1265. Date: LM IB.

Plastic Decoration This is a rare category of vases with external plastic decoration (Table 5); three are cataloged below (P215–P217). Plastic decoration only occurs at Leska in the MM II period, which is characterized especially by many rare and specialized shapes (Bentancourt 1985, 99). On Kythera, plastic decoration is very rare, with only a few examples coming from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, one of them bearing a relief of horns of consecration dating to the Neopalatial period (Tournavitou 2000, 299, fig. 1:β, contra 2011, 139, fig. 26:d; 2014, 471–477, figs. 94–96, pls. 29–31). At Leska there are two such examples, one from an open vessel (P215; Pl. 20) and one possibly from a cup (P216; Pl. 20). In both

78

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Type of Decoration

Number

Percentage

Painted

1

0.53%

Monochrome paint

126

67.38%

Plastic

5

2.67%

Barbotine

1

0.53%

Relief bands

11

5.88%

Band of square motifs

4

2.14%

Finger impressions

13

6.95%

Knobs

16

8.56%

Incisions

7

3.74%

Ridges

3

1.60%

TOTAL

187

100.00%

Table 5. Number and percentage of decorated sherds at Leska by type of decoration.

cases, the plastic decorations could have been used as handles or simply served as decorative motifs, which in P216 could have been a schematic representation of a snake. Example P215 appears to continue the local Kytherian pottery tradition and can be dated within the MM IB–II phase. Its rarity as a type is in accordance with data from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno as well as from other Cretan peak sanctuaries (Karetsou 1974, 238; 1978, 239, 249; Peatfield 1992, 71; Morris and Peatfield 1995, 645, pl. 9). A base of a closed vessel had external Barbotine decoration (P217; Table 5; Pl. 20). The treatment here is not like externally added clay or a linear pattern described by Coldstream (1972a, pl. 21:γ7–γ11; 1972b, 277–278; 1972c, pl. 82:L1, L2), but rather is as if the surface was ridged. Its appearance is closer to some examples from the MM IA settlement at Kastri belonging to larger vessels (Coldstream 1972a, 91, pl. 20:β102–β108; 1972b, 276). Barbotine examples of fine open vessels from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno dated MM IB–II appear to be simpler and of various types (Tournavitou 2014, 106, 462–464, fig. 90). This type of decoration seems to be more common at MM IB–II Kommos (Betancourt 1990, 29) and at MM II Vrysinas, where the technique is executed with added pieces of clay on the original surface; some pieces also are closer to P217 from Leska (Betancourt 1990, 29; Tzachili 2016, 66–67, pl. 5:17, 20).

The use of knobs is the most common form of plastic decoration on a vessel, with a clear reference to similar shapes in metal. The knobs vary in size and shape, with round and ovoid shapes being the most common, singly or, less commonly, with more than one placed horizontally (P39, P125, P126, P218–P222; Pls. 17, 19). They are placed externally, sometimes close to the rim and in two occasions on the lip (P125, P126). There are also two examples that stand out, one on the lower part of a straight-sided cup handle (P39) and one on the interior of a conical cup. The knobs are applied mainly on jugs, jars, and in one case a straight-sided cup and in another a conical cup. The vast majority of the 16 examples were applied on Red Micaceous ware vessels, two on fine vessels (P39), and two on Mudstone (P221, P222). They have been found in T.2 (1), T.3 (9), T.4 (2), T.6 (3), and Cairn 2 (1). Jars with a knob below the rim, knobs on bodies of closed and tripod vessels, and knobs on handles have also been found at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 358, 362, 380, 389, 409–410, 411, 416, figs. 33:K472, 36:491, 46:K576, 51:K630, 61:K745, 62:K751, 64:K758, 65:770, pl. 10:K472, 12:K576), and knobs are found on handles at the Kastri settlement (Coldstream 1972a, fig. 40:η51). P215 (T.4; 401.2.5; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Open vessel. L. 3.10; w. 3.20; th. 0.60–0.70 cm. Fine fabric; ext. 10YR 7/4, very pale brown; core 7.5YR 6/6, reddish yellow. Part of straight body and straight rim;

POTTERY

edge or rim at lower part from vessel of unclear shape; curvilinear piece of clay (oval in section) attached on lower part of rim and becomes detached higher up. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 111–116, 476, fig. 95:K1087, K1089, pl. 30:K1087, K1089. Date: MM II–LM I. P216 (T.3; 301.3.27; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Cup, rim. L. 2.70; w. 4.40; th. 1.30 cm. Fine fabric; ext., int., and core 7.5YR 7/6, reddish yellow. Part of curving body with wide everted rim; two horizontal plastic extensions/handles of different sizes (max. w. 1.50 and 1.00 cm), both oval in section—they may form loop handle or schematic snake design. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 111–116, 471, fig. 95:K1071, pl. 29:K1071. Date: MM II–LM I. P217 (T.3; 303.3.5; 07/09/2011; stratum 1; Pl. 20). Closed vessel, base. L. 5.70; w. 3.80; th. 1.00cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight base with straight body; Barbotine treatment on ext. surface. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, 91, pl. 20:β102–β108; 1972b, 276. Date: MM IB–II. P218 (T.4; 401.2.8; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Closed vessel, body. L. 5.40; w. 4.00; th. 0.9 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of straight body with ovoid flat knob (L. 2.0; w. 1.4; th. 0.2 cm). Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 111–116, 355–356, fig. 31:K461, pl. 9:K461. Date: MM II–LM I. P219 (T.3; 301.3.54; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Closed vessel, body. L. 3.70; w. 4.00; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext. and int. 7.5YR 5/4–5/6, brown to strong brown; core 2.5YR 5/6, red. Part of straight body with ovoid flat knob (L. 1.90; w. 1.20; th. 0.20 cm). Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 111–116, 355–356, fig. 31:K461, pl. 9:K461. Date: MM II–LM I. P220 (T.3; 301.2.29; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Closed vessel, body. L. 2.40; w. 2.50; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight body with round knob (d. 1.70 cm). Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, fig. 40:η51; Tournavitou 2014, 358, 362, 389, 409–410, 411, 416, figs. 33:K472, 36:K491, 51:K630, 61:K745, 62:K751, 64:K758, 65:K770, pl. 10:K472. Date: MM II–LM I. P221 (T.3; 301.2.30; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pithos, body. L. 3.50; w. 3.20; th. 1.60 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of straight body with round knob (d. 2.10 cm). Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, fig. 40:η51; Tournavitou 2014, 358, 362, 389, 409–410, 411, 416, figs 33:K472, 36:K491, 51:K630, 61:K745, 62:K751, 64:K758, 65:K770, pl. 10:K472. Date: MM II–LM I. P222 (T.4; 401.2.5; 07/19/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pithos, body. L. 3.50; w. 5.80; th. 1.50 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 7/6, reddish yellow. Part of straight body with two roughly round knobs (d. 1.40 cm); two joining pieces. Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, fig. 40:η51; Tournavitou 2014, 358, 362,

79

389, 409–410, 411, 416, figs 33:K472, 36:K491, 51:K630, 61:K745, 62:K751, 64:K758, 65:K770, p1. 10:K472. Date: MM II–LM I.

Relief Decoration This broad category of decoration involves the treatment of the clay before firing in order to form various relief patterns on the surface of the vessel. There are four types of patterns employed in this manner of decoration: knobs, relief bands, finger impressions, and ridges. Collectively, they form a category of decoration that overall is rare and found in only ca. 2.50% of the diagnostic sherds; two examples are cataloged below (P223, P224). Relief decoration had been employed since the Neolithic period, and it was an integral part of the Minoan ceramic repertoire during the Middle Minoan and Late Minoan phases. The same applies for its use in Kytherian pottery production, as is known from the Kastri settlement and from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. Relief bands are found in the form of broad bands thicker than the walls of the vessel, like example P223 (Pl. 20). They are mainly recovered on closed vessels and tripod cooking vases in the Red Micaceous and Orange fabrics, although there is one example in Mudstone and one in Fine. A total of 11 examples have been identified in T.1 (4), T3 (4), T.4 (2), and Cairn 2 (1; Table 5). A subvariety of the band form of decoration is present on four jar sherds, described earlier, which have a thin horizontal band cut with short incisions forming squares just below the rim (P171–P175; Pl. 19; Table 5). A smaller version of similar decoration, but on a hemispherical bowl, has been identified at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and dated to the earlier part of the Middle Bronze Age (Tournavitou 2014, 44, 325, fig. 17:K285). Finger impressions are more commonly identified at Leska, either on their own or on a thick band, in horizontal arrangement. They are most often placed on the external part of the rim (see, e.g., P122–P124, P140, P180, P186, P206, P209, P210; Pls. 18–20). The shapes on which they were used are mainly jars (P180, P186, P206, P209, P210) and less commonly tripod cooking vases (P122– P124) and a jug (P140). Almost all of these vessels were made out of Red Micaceous fabric, although there is one example of Mudstone Ware. The 13 total examples were found in T.3 (5), T.4 (7), and T.7 (1) (Table 5). A basin and a number of closed vases

80

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

with external finger impressions placed horizontally close to the rim are attested at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, and there are also examples on the bodies of vessels, located just above the base and even in multiple zones (Tournavitou 2014, 346, 355, 363, 365, 370–374, figs. 26:K412, 30:K453, 37:495, 40:K524, K526, 41:K535, K540–K542, pls. 8:K412, 9:K453, 10:K495, 11:K516, K542). Ridges are attested on a basin, a jug, and a number of jars from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 342, 375, 380, 384, 389, 392, 393, 422, 427, figs. 25:K407, 44:K554, 555, 45:K556–558, 46:K577, 48:597, 51:K631, 642, 52:K646, 53:K657, 69:K803, 71:K830, pls. 12:K554–558, 13:K597, K631, 14:K657, 18:K803), and also on pithoi and jars at the Kastri settlement (Coldstream 1972a, figs. 40:ζ148, ζ150; 1972c, fig. 91:E64). The three ridged bodies of closed vases of Mudstone fabric at Leska (e.g., P224; Pl. 20) find parallels in closed vessels, jars or pithoi, at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, and they can be dated in the MM IA–IIIA phase (Table 5; Tournavitou 2014, 59, 365, figs. 29:K517, 40:523, pl. 11:K517, K523). At the Kastri settlement available examples are placed within the MM IA period (Coldstream 1972a, pl. 21:γ19–γ21; 1972b, 278). At Vrysinas there are similar examples, including a straight-sided and bridge-spouted jar dated to the MM IIIA–IIIB phase (Tzachili 2016, 104, 109, pls. 19:14, 22:37). The Leska specimens appear to be part of the Protopalatial ceramic repertoire of MM IA–IIIA Kythera, which did not continue into later periods. P223 (T.3; 301.2.31; 07/07/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Closed vessel, body. L. 4.10; w. 6.20; th. 1.60 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight body with horizontal relief band (L. 1.20 cm). Parallels: Coldstream 1972a, figs. 40:η51, ζ148, ζ150; 1972c, fig. 91:E64. Date: MM II–LM I. P224 (T.4; 401.2.14; 07/14/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Closed vessel, body. L. 2.80; w. 2.50; th. 1.10 cm. Mudstone fabric; ext., int., and core 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Part of straight body with ridge; ridge round in section (w. 0.70 cm). Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 342, 375, 380, 384, 389, 392, 393, 422, 427, figs 25:K407, 44:K554, K555, 45:K556–K558, 46:K577, 48:597, 51:K631, K642, 52:K646, 53:K657, 69:K803, 71:K830, pls 12:K554–K558, 13:K597, K631, 14:K657, 18:K803. Date: MM II–LM I.

Incised Decoration Incised motif is a very rare form of decoration at Leska, recovered in only seven examples (e.g., P97,

P98, P163, P225; Pls. 17–19). They are more common in large closed vessels such as tripod cooking vessels, and in jars of Red Micaceous fabric and on one occasion in Mudstone. They are also found on open vessels, mainly rhyta, and two (not cataloged) are from the ridged bodies of closed vessels. Vessels with incised motifs have been recovered from T.3 (4), T4 (1), and T.5 (2) (Table 5). Parallels of this form of decoration have been attested on open vessels, including rhyta, at the settlement at Kastri (Coldstream 1972a, figs. 39:ζ46, ζ82, 40:η51, 57:ω244+ω245; 1972c, figs. 87:Ε15, E16, 88:27, 28, 94:Κ1). Incised decoration has also been identified on tripod cooking vessels, jugs, juglets, jars, and pithoi at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, 355–356, 379, 380, 411–416, 437, 441–442, figs. 31:K461, 46:K569, 47:K582, 65:K767, K771, 66:K777, 77:K877, 78:K902, K909, K910, pls. 9:K461, 10:K470, 24:K877). P225 (T.3; 301.3.50; 07/07/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Closed or tripod vessel, body. L. 3.50; w. 3.20; th. 0.70 cm. Red Micaceous fabric; ext., int., and core 5YR 5/6, yellowish red. Part of straight body with horizontal incision. Parallels: Tournavitou 2014, 355–356, 379, 380, 411–416, 437, 441–442, figs 31:K461, 46:K569, 47:K582, 65:K767, K771, 66:K777, 77:K877, 78:K902, K909–K910, pls. 9:K461, 10:K470, 24:K877. Date: MM II–LM I.

Discussion Ceramic Repertoire The consumption of ceramic vessels at Leska follows the main trends of Kytherian pottery production, as observed and described by excavators at Kastri and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Coldstream 1972b; Bevan et al. 2002; Tournavitou 2014). Cretan cultural influence is dominant in shapes and decoration, but local characteristics already were present from the Protopalatial period onward. Most importantly, local preferences are more evident in the way in which some of these ceramic vases were consumed in various contexts, domestic, funerary, and sacred. Mainland Greek influence is limited in techniques, shapes, and overall numbers, but it can still be traced. The presence of push-through handles supports this assertion, arguing for conservatism in terms of techniques.

POTTERY

Moreover, new types of pots, such as Vapheio cups, were manufactured by local ceramic workshops and consumed at all types of sites on the island. Research at Leska reveals that the same trends followed in the eastern coastal areas of the island were followed in the inland and western parts of the island. The ceramic shapes, their frequency, and the activities that they suggest, however, emphasise that the sanctuary had a character of its own. The dispersal of pottery throughout the space of the sanctuary can also provide a better picture of the practices taking place there. More importantly, it may be possible to identify activities in specific parts of the site or to trace changes in activities through time. Conical cups dominate the diagnostic assemblage, some in miniature, and straight-sided cups are the second most common vessel type (Table 4). Hemispherical cups were also relatively popular. In total, cups represent ca. two-thirds of the diagnostic vessels deposited at this site, underlining the importance of drinking as an activity within the sanctuary (Ill. 6). Their dispersal is almost even throughout T.2–T.6, suggesting more-or-less uniform patterns of use and the consumption of food and liquid in the largest part of the sanctuary (Ill. 4). The case of T.1 differs, since in this trench earlier Protopalatial cup shapes were found, but this situation changed later and Neopalatial phase vessels (MM III–LM I) are uncommon. This circumstance may reveal a change in the northern part of the sanctuary, which could have been reserved during the MM III–LM I period for other types of ritual activities. Bowls of different shapes along with basins, kalathoi, and plates form another important category of vessels. They are well represented in iconography, carrying contents, most probably dry consumables, which would have been on display in the sanctuary. From larger vessels the sharing of the food could have been practiced, while smaller vessels could have acted as plates for consumption. More than 7.00% of the local ceramic assemblage belongs to this category, suggesting its importance in the local practices (Table 4). In addition, one could add the multifunctional character of conical cups, which could have been used as vessels for the consumption of dry food as well. This category reveals the role of dry food consumption at the sanctuary, which, along with that of liquids, emphasises

81

the significance of feasting. Bowls have been found scattered in all trenches, T.1–T.5, with the exception of T.6 (Ill. 4), revealing a slight difference in distribution as compared to the cups described earlier. Perhaps the display of these items was an important element of ritual in the sanctuary but was not practiced in the western part of the site. Rhyta and lamps/braziers are two more open vessel shapes that have a more specialized use, but they appear in limited numbers (Ill. 6). The former are associated with liquids and rituals, but they are not as frequently attested in sanctuaries as one would expect. They are more commonly found in settlements, but when they are recovered in cult-related sites, their specialized character is underlined. Despite their simple, utilitarian shapes, lamps/braziers are more common at sanctuaries than at other sites. They are related to light, fire, ash, and incense burning, which appear to have had some symbolic and practical significance at Leska, but their low numbers argue for a limited and infrequent role. Overall, open shapes comprise more than ca. 73.70% of the diagnostic sherds from the ceramic assemblage at Leska (Ill. 6). Comparable data come from Trench S2 at the MM IIIA peak sanctuary of Gournos in Crete, where 60.00% of the assemblage was open vessels, primarily cups of different shapes and a few deep bowls and plates; the rest (40.00%) consisted of large amphorae and jars (Rethemiotakis 2009, 192). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, open vessels represent ca. 92.00% of the assemblage during the Neopalatial period (Tournavitou 2014, table 3). The tripod cooking vessel is the third most popular pottery category at Leska, consisting ca. 12.75% of the local assemblage (Ill. 6; Table 4). The preference for this shape highlights the importance of food and feasting at the sanctuary. These vessels work alongside bowls and conical cups for consuming dry foods or liquid soups or broths that may have been contained or prepared in the tripod cooking vessels. It is proposed here that food was prepared in these vessels at the houses of locals and carried therein to the site. The tripod cooking vessels were also used as containers from which food was served to participants at the sanctuary. They are more common in T.1, T.4, and T.6, uncommon in T.2 and T.5, and even less popular in T.3 (Ill. 4). It seems as if the main bulk of the tripod cooking vessels was placed in the peripheral trenches of the site and less so in

82

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

the central. Perhaps they were placed there when they were brought to the sanctuary and food served from them, and then the food was consumed at the center of the site. Jugs are the most characteristic liquid container in the ceramic repertoire, consisting more than 8.78% of the diagnostic ceramic assemblage at Leska (Ill. 6). They are attested in a variety of shapes, among which the juglet shape, a miniature version, is included. These vases allowed the carrying of liquid contents to the site, which in turn could be served in cups and perhaps used for performing libations. It is very likely that wine was among the liquids that were served in such containers. Bridge-spouted jars also could be added, with spouts appropriate for serving liquids, and the same can be proposed for amphorae/jugs and amphorae with shapes and rim arrangements practical for containing and serving liquids. Taking into account this observation, the frequency of vessels that could function like jugs is >9.00%, underlining their importance to the activities of the sanctuary. Jugs were found in moderate numbers in T.2 and T.4, more common in T.3 and T.6, and even more popular in T.1 and T.5 (Ill. 4). Their popularity may be related to libations, especially in T.1 with the exposed bedrock, and also to the serving of liquids, more in the peripheral areas of the site and somewhat less in the center. Container vessels deposited at Leska include jars and pithoi of small sizes. Many diverse jar types have been identified, overall consisting of ca. 4.18% of the local assemblage (Ill. 6). The main use of jars was to act as containers of goods, including food in both liquid and dry form. If one takes into account the jar shapes more related to liquid storage, their frequency is just ca. 4.18% at the site. In any case, storage appears to have been the least popular activity at the sanctuary, and it was possibly connected to the carrying of goods to be consumed during feasting or to present as offerings. The latter could have been an infrequent and expensive practice given the economic capabilities of the local rural population. Container vessels appear to have been common in all trenches, T.1–T.4 and T.6, but less so in T.5 (Ill. 4). Their frequency is higher in T.3, T.4, and T.6—that is, in the central-western part of the sanctuary. In total, the closed vessels at Leska represent ca. 13.00% of the diagnostic assemblage, revealing again the low popularity of containers. Interestingly,

this category is almost equally as popular as the general cooking vessels category. In this framework, it should be mentioned that a fair number of handles and bases cannot be assigned to specific vase shapes, and they could have potentially belonged to tripod cooking vases, jugs, jars, or pithoi. The ceramic vessels brought to this site were related to the activities that took place there, and after their use, they were left in the open space of the sanctuary as offerings. It remains unclear whether they were left purposefully there as offerings to the deity(-ies) with all or some of their contents, or if these vessels were considered non-reusable, perhaps taboo, in everyday life. This practice appears to have been common at other extra-settlement sanctuaries on Kythera and in Cretan sanctuaries as well during the Middle Minoan and Late Minoan phases. As for the symbolic significance of the pottery at Leska, feasting is the central theme, which included the consumption of food and drink. More than 95.00% of the ceramic vessels from this site can be directly associated with feasting, with an emphasis on liquid consumption (ca. 75.00%). This fact could point toward the symbolic significance of liquid offerings, toasting, and/or libations during performed rituals. The study of the assemblage from Leska has also highlighted the relationship between vessel shape and fabric. Kastri has provided good stratigraphic dates and well-dated contexts from burials, forming sequences of vase types and fabrics (Coldstream 1972c; Kiriatzi 2003). The introduction of the Red Micaceous clay and the vessels made of it is perhaps the most characteristic relationship. The location of Kastri in the central-eastern coastal part of the island, very close to one of the two known pottery workshop regions, may have influenced this picture. Hagios Georgios sto Vouno already has shown that there were exceptions, presenting more varied associations between ceramic forms and fabrics (Tournavitou 2014). Leska, being located on the western part of the island, demonstrates that the circulation of pottery throughout Kythera was more complicated, including a larger variety of products from the northern workshop of the island. Thus, the workshops that employed Red Micaceous clay produced almost all of the shapes that have been recovered in the Mudstone and Fine fabrics. Beyond the use of the vessels in the sanctuary context, two interesting trends can also be observed in the ceramic assemblage of Leska, miniaturization

POTTERY

and skeuomorphism. Both trends already have been noted in Kytherian pottery from various contexts such as settlements, tombs, and sanctuaries. Leska provides an additional example, thus enriching the discussion related to the role of vessels and their socioeconomic and symbolic importance.

Miniature Vessels A sizeable group of ceramic vessels that can be characterized as miniatures have been identified at Leska. This is a particular category of pottery comprised of smaller versions of vessels that may or may not have had practical uses (Simandiraki 2011, 46–47; 2012, 257; Barfoed 2015, 184; Foxhall 2015, 1). Although there is ambiguity regarding their functionality, the miniature vessel is a very specialized form, making them extraordinary objects. Their manufacture was deliberate, but their size or degree of representation does not mean that they were inferior or less valuable (Barfoed 2015, 183; Foxhall 2015, 1, contra Kiernan 2015, 51). Miniatures belong to three broad varieties, smaller copies of larger shapes, hybrid shapes that have unique elements and also incorporate those of larger vessels (i.e., hybrids), and shapes that are found only in miniature (Kiernan 2015, 46). In addition, miniature vessels are sometimes incorporated into larger vessels (Flevaraki 2016, 181–182). In general, the relationship of miniatures to reality varies and sometimes reaches abstraction in form and meaning (Knappett 2012, 99). In more abstracted forms, often the function and some of its original meaning were lost, and the vessels became more symbolic in character, emphasising their iconic or indexical value (Kyriakidis 2005a, 91–92). Nonetheless, their meanings could vary according to the contexts in which they were found, and they were culturally as well as socioeconomically dependent. Meanings were associated with the relationship between the miniature and the prototype, and at the same time new meanings were formed. Their use in sanctuaries is well known and documented in Greece from the 8th century b.c. onward and throughout antiquity (Barfoed 2015, 170–171). They are also recovered in other contexts in smaller numbers, however, such as settlements and burials (Hammond 2005, 418; Langdon 2007, 187; López-Bertran

83

and Vives-Ferrándiz 2015). In general, the majority of miniature vases tend to be open shapes or shapes related to libations and/or drinking activities (Pemberton 1989, 168–177; Steiner 1992, 387–388, 401; Hammond 2005, 417 n. 11). Miniature vessels are found in Minoan Crete from the Prepalatial period, and they became more popular during the Protopalatial and Neopalatial periods (Girella 2002, 174–175). There they have been found primarily in sacred caves, and they also are well attested in peak sanctuaries during the Neopalatial phase (Myres 1902–1903, 378–380; Platon 1951, 142–144; Faure 1969, 183; Davaras 1974, 210–211; Karetsou 1975, 338–389; Jones 1999, table 6; Tzedakis, Chryssoulaki, and Vokotopoulos 1999, 323; Chryssoulaki 1999, 311, 316; Tzachili 2003, 329; Kyriakidis 2005a, 160–161, table 25; Simandiraki 2011, 50; Flevaraki 2016); they have been found also in burials, habitation areas, and palaces, especially in the Prepalatial and Protopalatial periods (Girella 2002, 175; Flevaraki 2016, 182–183). At the Kato Syme sanctuary, where open-shaped vessels were preferred for performing libations, Neopalatial period miniatures have been found (Girella 2002, 175–176). At the MM III–LM IA peak sanctuary of Vrysinas, a number of miniature vessels of 22 different shapes were identified, all with the same fabrics as their larger counterparts (Flevaraki 2016, 167, 183). Open forms dominate the assemblage, with the conical cup being the most common shape, while juglets appear to be relatively uncommon (Flevaraki 2016, 181, charts 5, 7, 8). This typological variety is thought to be closer in character to the peak sanctuary at Karphi and the sanctuary at Kato Syme, and less so to the peak sanctuary at Petsophas (Flevaraki 2016, 183). Interestingly enough, among the collected pieces there are some examples that are part of larger, more complex vessels (Flevaraki 2016, 181– 182, chart 8). It is thought that they played an active part in locally performed rituals, either in their use or with their contents (Flevaraki 2016, 183). On contemporary Kythera, miniature clay vessels are found at the peak sanctuary of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2000, 303; 2009; 2014, 92–96, pls. 10, 12–14). Moreover, small numbers have been noted in the chamber tombs of Kastri, specifically in two of ten excavated chamber tombs (Coldstream 1972c, 232–233, 256; Bevan et al. 2002, 89, fig. 11). In the settlement at Kastri,

84

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

they appear to be very rare—only a baggy alabastron, a juglet, and a conical cup—while there were two more examples, a conical cup and an alabastron, which formed parts of regular-sized kernoi (Coldstream 1972a, 123, 137, 145, 185, 196). The preference for closed shapes over open is an interesting phenomenon, shared in examples in both the settlement and tombs. At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, juglets and conical cups were the most common miniature shapes, but other shapes have been recovered in very small numbers (Tournavitou 2009). The two most common miniature types at this peak sanctuary are the same as those recovered at Leska (Georgiadis 2014a). The conical cups from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno are smaller versions of the shape, sharing the same characteristics. The juglet, however, is an original form attested only in miniatures, which does not imitate a larger vessel, and the vast majority of the rhyta were miniature rather than normal in size (Tournavitou 2009). The miniaturization found at both Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno is similar in the shapes that occur, suggesting that the vessels were intended for the same roles and expressed the same symbolic meanings. Conical cups and juglets are forms used for the serving and consumption of liquids, even in very small quantities. Their symbolism is related to libation rituals, and they may have had more practical uses. These vessels could have contained small amounts of liquids such as perfume, wine, or honey, which could have been used as offerings to the deity(ies) or during rituals. The most common miniature shape at Leska is the juglet, but it is not the only shape found. Based on the definition of miniature vessels at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2009), the smallest miniature conical cups with base diameters of 2.00 cm could fit into this category. There is also one example of a rhyton from Leska whose size would place it in this category of vases as well (P100). In total, there are 15 miniature conical cups, which along with the miniature juglets and rhyton form an assemblage of 53 diagnostic sherds. Thus, miniature vessels consist of ca. 2.67% of the diagnostic sherds from this site, in comparison to the ca. 0.85% of the overall assemblage at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. At the latter site, juglets were the most common miniature vase shape, consisting of 67.57%, followed by conical cups at 19.25%. Overall, the assemblage contained a large variety of miniature shapes, almost

copying all normal-sized vessels (Tournavitou 2009, 215–219, figs. 18.1, 18.4; 2014, tables 10, 12–14, charts 6, 8–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23–25). The second most popular shape is the conical cup, and the third is the rhyton, and in that respect the practices at the two Kytherian peak sanctuaries were very similar. Furthermore, at Leska juglets consist of ca. 70.00%, conical cups ca. 28.00%, and the rhyton ca. 2.00% of the miniature vessel assemblage, suggesting very similar patterns of consumption at the two sites. The vast majority of the miniature vessels (ca. 90.00%) from Leska have been recovered from the center of the site in T.3 and T.6 (Ill. 4). The second largest assemblage is concentrated in the northern and highest point of the summit in T.1, around the largest area of exposed bedrock. Thus, one could suggest a spatial pattern in the consumption of such vases and their eventual deposition within the space of the sanctuary. They followed a similar pattern to jugs, and their role as libation vessels, even of small liquid quantities, should be emphasized. The meaning of the miniatures at Leska is elusive, but they could have served as containers of an expensive or restricted liquid, especially in the case of the juglets, and their use in libations also can be proposed. The greater variety in miniature shapes attested at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno can be associated with its closer proximity to ceramic workshops and the large number of vessels deposited at the sanctuary. Miniatures appear, however, to be more common at Leska than any other ritually related site on Kythera.

Skeuomorphism Skeuomorphism is a tendency found not only in ceramic vessels but also in a series of other materials employed for producing vases. Skeuomorphs are vessels that copy original shapes made in other materials. This trend appeared in the Early Cycladic Aegean and in EM IIA Crete (Day and Wilson 2004, 53), becoming more fashionable in the Protopalatial and Neopalatial periods in Crete (Knappett 2002; 2008, 123). In the case of pottery, there is the tendency to copy primarily metal and secondarily stone shapes. Thus, single elements like rivets, thin walls, and thin handles or even entire vessels are copied in clay, often resulting in a cheaper version of the more

POTTERY

expensive and/or exclusive material (Knappett 2008, 123). In decoration, skeumorphism is evident in the application of monochrome lustrous black paint resembling metal, while there is also decoration resembling vases made out of Giali obsidian in Crete (Knappett 2008, 123–124; Carter et al. 2016). On Kythera, the production and consumption of skeuomorphs appeared in the Protopalatial period in the form of carinated cups found at Kastri, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, and Leska (Georgiadis 2014a). In this respect, they followed the trends and shapes that were popular in contemporary Crete. Vapheio cups and other idiosyncratic shapes such as bird’s-nest bowls and libation tables are additional skeuomorphic shapes that occur in the Neopalatial period on Kythera (Banou 2012, 323–327; Tournavitou 2014, 104–105). The Vapheio cup is a particularly interesting case, since its shape has mainland Greek origins and is considered an influence from that region rather than from Crete. In contemporary Leska, the same phenomenon is attested in some shapes like Vapheio cups, kalathoi, tumblers, ring-handled basins, and closed vessels with knobs and ridged decorations. In other cases, skeumorphism is expressed through specific elements of vessels, such as the rhyton, hole-mouthed jars with square relief decorations, and jugs with rivets. In the case of the carinated cups, Vapheio cups, and kalathoi, it is the shapes that resemble metal vases; the jugs and the rhyton have clay knobs or rivets copying metal elements; and the ring-handled basin is found exclusively in bronze versions in contemporary Crete and Mycenae. The latter form in clay is a Kytherian idiosyncrasy, primarily recovered in burial contexts at Kastri (Bevan et al. 2002, 78). Another type of skeuomorph is the tumbler vessel, which imitates a stone shape and has been identified at the Kastri cemetery, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, and Leska (Warren 1969, 98; Bevan et al. 2002, 77). The skeuomorph vessels from Leska consist of a small group in the local pottery assemblage (ca. 3.10%). These vessels are found in shapes primarily used for the display, serving, and consumption of both dry and liquid commodities, with an emphasis on the latter. Skeuomorphic vases have been found in T.1–T4 and T.6, spread across the main area of the site (Ill. 4). Their symbolic meaning approaches sharing, emphasising the communal character of the rituals that took place at the sanctuary. At the same time, they also could have acted as

85

status indicators for the individuals or families that brought these vessels and their contents, whether they were consumed only by members of one family or by a larger group. Perhaps there was increasing importance in the role of the host in Kytherian society during the Neopalatial phase. The presence of skeuomorphs at Leska comes in accordance with other ritually-related sites on Kythera, such as the Kastri cemetery and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno.

Comparing the Pottery Assemblages of Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno The three most popular shapes at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno are the conical cup, the tripod cooking vessel, and the straight-sided cup (Tournavitou 2014, 40). The same three are the most preferred shapes at Leska, in a slightly different order: first conical cups, then straight-sided cups, and finally tripod cooking vases. At the former sanctuary, these three shapes consist of 98.90% of the diagnostic sherds (Tournavitou 2014, table 3), while at the latter they consist of 72.58%. Drinking and feasting appear to be the main practices that these vessels facilitated. The diversity of pottery shapes at Leska is an important aspect of the assemblage, with at least 31 in total (Table 4). The variety of shapes at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno is almost equally diverse (27), despite the significantly larger volume of pottery there (Tournavitou 2009, table 18.2; 2011, table 1; 2014, table 3). Some of these shape categories incorporate more than one type identified at Leska. Pottery shapes recovered at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and not Leska include stands, miniature bird nests, miniature tripod vessels, lids, vases with holes used as rhyta, and kernoi. In total, they consist of 0.02% of the total ceramic assemblage (Tournavitou 2009, table 3), arguing that their significance in the sanctuary is very low. Vessel types found at Leska and not at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno include the ring-handled basin and the low-spouted jug. These shapes represent 0.96% of the diagnostic pottery at Leska, confirming that there is only a small amount of diversity between the two sanctuaries. There are some interesting similarities and differences between the two sanctuaries that also should be noted. At both, Vapheio cups have been

86

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

identified, a shape that does not occur in the peak sanctuaries of Crete. This shape was derived from mainland Greek influence, most probably a result of the proximity of Kythera to the Peloponnese and the close interactions among several sites of this area. Shared by the two Kytherian peak sanctuaries were rhyta and lamps-braziers, which are recognized in limited numbers at a few peak sanctuaries in Crete. On Kythera, practices related to libations and perhaps incense burners were more important in locally performed rituals than at the peak sanctuaries in Crete. A certain regionalism associated with specific rites could be deduced from this trend. In the case of the stemmed cups, they were preferred at both sanctuaries and the Kastri cemetery, but not at the Kastri settlement, arguing for a more specialized use perhaps related to rituals. Kalathoi were common at both sanctuaries on Kythera, where they tend to be larger in size than those recovered at the Kastri tombs. The differences between Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno are also worth noting: at the former, the hemispherical cups were of normal size, while at the latter miniature versions were preferred. Equally important is the popularity of bowls and jugs at Leska, which are identified only in limited numbers at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. The popularity of vessels at Leska emphasizes the eating/feasting and liquid serving/libation aspects of the activities that took place at the sanctuary in comparison to those at the other peak sanctuary on the island. There are also two common trends shared by Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, miniaturization and skeuomorphism. Miniatures form a sizeable assemblage at both sites, although they were far more popular at Leska. Despite this, the three miniature vase types recognized at Leska were identical to the three most popular at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. Nonetheless, at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno there was a larger variety of miniature shapes, which overall were recovered in small numbers. Thus, the same meaning appears to have been attributed to miniature vases at both sanctuaries. At Leska, they were more standardized and popular, and at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno they were more varied in form (Georgiadis 2014b). Skeuomorphic vessels were also a common offering at Leska, and although they are attested at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, they were less popular. Most pottery shapes were present at both sites, but at the same time there was variation

among the skeumorph vessel types employed at the two sites. Skeuomorphism also has been identified at the Kastri tombs and settlement (Georgiadis 2014b). At both sanctuaries, miniaturization and skeuomorphism must have served a social need to offer specialized vases that were not exotic or made out of valuable materials. Thus, they demarcate social differentiation among the participants of the rituals taking place at the sanctuaries. The specialized and standardized form of these vessels suggests that their ceramic production was tailored to address this social need. Both these trends also are attested in contemporary Neopalatial Crete, but the intensity of these phenomena in all contexts, habitation sites, burials, and peak sanctuaries on Kythera reveal a cultural and social idiosyncrasy. In both sanctuaries, the recovered pottery corresponded to the shapes identified at the Kastri tombs and settlement. It was not the variety but rather the preferences and quantities of the vessel types that made Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno different from the rest. These trends were directly related to the specialized activities that took place at these sites—that is, the performed rituals. The analysis of the locally consumed pottery along with the rest of the finds from Leska allows a better understanding of the rituals and beliefs associated with the specific sanctuary and the deity(-ies) worshipped there. The variety of pottery shapes recovered from Cretan peak santuaries is very large and changed con­siderably, in some cases, between the Protopalatial and Neopalatial period. Both Donald Jones (1999) and Evangelos Kyriakidis (2005a) have categorized the shapes according to function in the same manner, though only broadly, due to the lack of thoroughly published material. Nonetheless, it was possible to understand the general character of at least some of the rituals that were taking place at these sites. Open vessels, including all types of cups and bowls, appear to be the most common shapes, recovered in the vast majority of the peak sanctuaries, with few exceptions (Jones 1999, table 6; Kyriakidis 2005a, 128–129, 130–133, tables 7, 8, fig. 26). They are considered evidence of feasting having taken place at these sites, while the same popularity can be observed at sacred caves and sacred enclosures. The predominance of conical cups is evident in the few cases where quantitative data are available, such as at Kato Syme, Kophinas, and Vrysinas (Kyriakidis 2005a, table 7; Tournavitou 2011; 2014).

87

POTTERY

Pouring and servings vessels—that is, jugs and spouted jars—were found in small numbers at 10 sites (Jones 1999, table 6; Kyriakidis 2005a, 133, table 9, fig. 27; Tournavitou 2014). Cooking pots have been recovered at nine sites, but evidence of fire has been found in only four (Jones 1999, table 6; Kyriakidis 2005a, 135–137, tables 10, 11, figs. 28, 29). Storage vessels were also found at 10 peak sanctuaries, but in small numbers (Jones 1999, table 6; Kyriakidis 2005a, 133, table 9, fig. 27). Despite the chronological differences, the variations in the pottery types found at peak sanctuaries, with the exception of open vessels, are often significant. If reports confirm that certain pottery types were absent from some peak sanctuaries, then it would seem that the performance of certain rituals was restricted to select sites, and that more common rituals were practiced than originally believed. Overall, the Cretan and Kytherian peak sanctuaries are very similar in the way pottery was utilized, arguing for common practices and rituals having taken place on both islands.

Chronology Setting the chronological framework in which the sanctuary was active is of primary importance when assessing its role within a contemporary Kytherian and broader Aegean context. It allows better comprehension of the cultural and religious parallels that existed as well as the traits that were active in the surrounding area.

The earliest diagnostic pottery at Leska belongs to the Protopalatial period (MM IB–IIIA) and more specifically MM IB–II. It demarcates the beginning of the use of this site as a sanctuary and represents ca. 0.95% of the diagnostic assemblage (Table 6). A similar percentage of Protopalatial vessels has been identified at the peak sanctuary of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Tournavitou 2014, table 1). The sample from Leska is very small and difficult to assess, but cups, cooking vessels, and closed vases are included. There are a few quantitively significant shapes, such as the straight-sided cups (including P39 with plastic decoration) and the bridge-spouted jars, which could belong to the broader MM II–III period, and at least some could have belonged to the Protopalatial phase. There are also several shapes that are assigned to the MM III phase as well, and they could date to either the Protopalatial or the Neopalatial periods. The rest of the pottery (ca. 99.05%) can be dated to the MM III phase continuing in large numbers until the end of the LM I period. The Neopalatial phase (MM IIIB–LM IB) was the main period during which this site was intensively used and the vast majority of ceramic vessels were consumed. Two main strata have been identified at Leska: stratum 2, which corresponds to the brown soil areas recovered across the site and dates from MM III until the end of the LM IB phase (Table 1); and stratum 1, which was found always underlaying stratum 2 or was the only stratum above the natural bedrock, and where finds date from MM I/II until the

Vessel

Number

Percentage

Conical cup (P216)

1

5.26%

Carinated cups (P24, P25)

2

10.53%

Plate (P91)

1

5.26%

Tripod vessel

6

31.58%

Closed vase with Barbotine decoration (P217)

1

5.26%

Closed vases with ridged decoration

3

15.79%

Closed vases with push-through handles (P212, P213)

4

21.05%

Body from a closed vase with hole for push-through handle

1

5.26%

TOTAL

19

100.00%

Table 6. Protopalatial vessels from Leska.

88

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

LM I(A) phase. The dark brown deposit in part of T.3, stratum 2a, which was above stratum 1 and below stratum 2, can be dated from MM IIB until the end of the LM I period. The fabrics used during the Neopalatial phase, especially for the open vessels, could indicate the areas from which the participants of the rituals taking place at Leska came. A similar interpretation has been proposed for Vrysinas (Kordatzaki 2012). If this approach is applied in the case of Leska, it can be proposed that some of the pilgrims originated from a broad area north of the sanctuary—that is, central and north Kythera, up to Potamos and Hagia Pelagia.

At the end of the LM IB phase, the sanctuary at Leska appears to have been abandoned. The same chronological framework put forth for Leska has been proposed for Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (MM IB/II–LM IB), thus suggesting parallel occupation. These two sites served the needs of the population that lived in the immediate and wider surrounding areas, which belonged to the same social, political, cultural, and ideological system. These two sanctuaries as well as the settlement remains from the same period argue that MM III– LM IB was a period of prosperity on Kythera.

4

Small Finds

The small finds from Leska are limited in number but comprise coherent and distinct categories of object. Below, their main types are outlined and discussed by material, including lithic objects, clay objects, and metal objects among others.

Lithic Objects Pebbles Small pebbles comprise the largest category of find other than pottery sherds at Leska. Thirty-six pebbles have been recovered in all main trenches of the excavation (T.1–T.6, Pb1–Pb36; Pl. 20). Most (17) were found in T.3, 10 in T.6, three each in T.4 and T.5, two in T.1, and one in T.2. Their materials include mudstone (4), schist (2), chalk (2), conglomerate (3), and simple river pebbles (25). Mudstone is commonly attested on Kythera, especially in the central-eastern part of the island close to Kastri

(Kiriatzi 2003, 127). Schists are found in the northern part of the island, north and northwest of Potamos, while the chalk, a sedimentary rock similar to limestone, possibly comes from a limestone geological environment that predominated the western, southern, and central-eastern parts of the island. Sea or river pebbles are relatively common at peak sanctuaries and other sanctuary types. Examples have been recovered at Atsipades, Modi, Prinias, Traostalos, Ano Vigla, Keria, Spili Vorizi, Vrysinas, Xerokampos Vigla, Anatoli Pantotinou Korifi, Megalos Rozitis, Korfi tou Stavromenou, Rizoviglo, Hagios Mammas, Etiani Kefala, Drapanokefalo, Kopida, Alona, Korifi at Plakias-Preveli, Hagia Kyriaki Gremnakas, Anemospelia, Juktas, Efentis Christos, Gyristi, Kato Syme, Karphi, and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Karetsou 1981, 145; Peatfield 1990, 122; 1992, 68, 76; 2001, 54; 2009, 253; Nowicki 1994, 35–37; 2007b, 4, 6, 11, 15, 17, 27; Chryssoulaki 1999, 316; 2001, 60; Kyriakidis 2005a, 143–144, fig. 38, table 18; Soetens 2009, 261, 264 n. 19; Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 122; Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015,

90

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

260, fig. 4:ε). At Juktas, pebbles were found in a Protopalatial context along with clay balls, and they were associated with a stone kernos that had a large number of circular shallow hollows (Karetsou 2012, 90). They are in most cases small in size, as are noted in the available reports. The deposition of pebbles is a Protopalatial tradition, which, according to the Cretan evidence, probably continued into the Neopalatial period. The pebbles at peak sanctuaries are either from the sea or from rivers, brought purposefully by human agents but with no clear utilitarian use. In EM I–II burials pebbles also are found, often associated with Cycladic cultural influence, suggesting an older ritual element that continued in some way during the Protopalatial period (Davaras 1971; Kyriakidis 2005a, 143). The presence of pebbles at Daskalio Kavos and at peak sanctuaries alongside marble figurines is also emphasized by Renfrew (2010, 290). Indeed, a significant number of limestone pebbles from Ano Kouphonisi were placed by humans in the Special Deposit South at EC II Daskalio Kavos on Keros (Renfrew et al. 2007, 124; Renfrew et al. 2009, 39). The same applies in the case of an EC II room south of the Hall on top of the hill at Daskalio islet, Keros, where a number of sea limestone pebbles from Ano Kouphonisi also were deposited; it has been interpreted as a cultic locale (Renfrew et al. 2009, 38–39, fig. 5). This practice and interpretation fit well with the aforementioned burial practices and support the notion of Cycladic influence in Crete. The identification of cultic hilltop sites of FN/EM I in Crete has been based partly on the accumulation and deposition of pebbles at these locations (Nowicki 1994, 37; Watrous 1995, 392–394). At peak sanctuaries such as Keria, Spili Vorizi, Atsipades, Hagia Kyriaki Gremnakas, and possibly Juktas, it has been proposed that pebbles were employed to define ritual areas (Karetsou 1981, 145; Peatfiled 1990, 122; 1992, 68, 76, 80; Nowicki 2007b, 11, 24). The presence of pebbles at peak sanctuaries in Crete has been traced throughout Prepalatial, Protopalatial, and Neopalatial contexts (Georgoulaki 2002, 23–24, n. 25). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, their presence was reported on the highest terrace of the site (Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, pl. 18:127). The pebbles at Leska appear to have certain uniformity in shape, size, and color. They seem to have

come from a riverbed/streambed like those at Protopalatial Atsipades, where a clear report is available (Peatfield 1992, 68; Peatfield and Morris 2012, 235). The shape is round, usually with two relatively flat sides, and they are, on average, 2.41 cm long, 1.83 cm wide, and 1.07 cm thick (median L. 2.20, w. 1.60, th. 1.00 cm). The color of the pebbles is mainly gray (16), reddish to brown (11), and whitish (5). The similarities among these three elements suggests that the preference for placing these pebbles at Leska was related to size, shape, and, perhaps less, color. Although there were more recovered in T.3 and T.6, they seem to be dispersed throughout all trenches, and no special concentration appears to exist that would have demarcated space in any particular part of the site. Thus, there is no clear practical use for these items, and they could be viewed as offerings to the divinity left at the peak sanctuary—offerings whose meaning should be considered in relation to the rest of the finds rather than as denoting space within the sanctuary. These pebbles were collected possibly by the locals en route to the peak sanctuary and placed there as offerings. Alternatively, Alan Peatfield argues that if the pebbles were placed as offerings that would signify memory (1992, 80). Stella Chryssoulaki (2001, 63) and Steven Soetens (2009, 265) believe that pebbles symbolize water, while Soetens suggests they are associated with springs and the role of peak sanctuaries as ritual sites for evoking rainfall. Pb1 (T.1; 101.1.1SF; 07/21/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.90; w. 1.40; th. 0.70 cm. Gley 2 5/1, bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I. Pb2 (T.1; 101.1.2SF; 07/21/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.30; w. 1.60; th. 0.70 cm. Gley 2 5/1, bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb3 (T.2; 201.1.1SF; 07/04/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.90; w. 1.60; th. 0.60 cm. Gley 2 5/1, bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I. Pb4 (T.3; Context: 301.1.1SF; 07/04/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pebble, small. L. 4.40; w. 2.60; th. 1.00 cm. Gley 2 3/1, very dark bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb5 (T.3; 301.1.1SF; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pebble, small. L. 2.40; w. 1.60; th. 0.90 cm. Gley 2 3/1,

SMALL FINDS

very dark bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202– 203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb6 (T.3; 301.1.2SF; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pebble, small. L. 1.80; w. 1.50; th. 0.40 cm. 7.5YR 5/4, brown. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I. Pb7 (T.3; 301.2.1SF; 07/05/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.70; w. 1.90; th. 1.80 cm. Gley 2 6/1, bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I. Pb8 (T.3; 301.2.2SF; 07/05/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.30; w. 1.70; th. 1.40 cm. 10YR 8/1–8/2, white to very pale brown. Chalk. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb9 (T.3; 301.2.1SF; 07/06/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.90; w. 1.40; th. 0.60 cm. Gley 2 3/1, very dark bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224– 225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb10 (T.3; 301.2.2SF; 07/06/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.70; w. 1.40; th. 0.90 cm. Gley 2 3/1, very dark bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb11 (T.3; 301.2.3SF; 07/06/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 3.30; w. 2.20; th. 1.90 cm. 10YR 8/1, white. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb12 (T.3; 301.2.1SF; 07/07/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 3.00; w. 1.70; th. 1.10 cm. 5YR 4/2–4/3, dark reddish gray to reddish brown. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb13 (T.3; 301.2.2SF; 07/07/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.70; w. 0.90; th. 1.00 cm. 10YR 7/1–8/1, light gray to white. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb14 (T.3; 301.2.3SF; 07/07/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.70; w. 1.40; th. 0.90 cm. 10R 4/3, weak red. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb15 (T.3; 301.2.4SF; 07/07/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 3.70; w. 2.50; th. 1.60 cm. 10YR 8/1, white. Chalk. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I. Pb16 (T.3; 301.2.5SF; 07/07/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.20; w. 2.30; th. 0.90 cm. 5YR 6/6, reddish yellow. Conglomerate. Parallels: Sakellarakis

91

2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb17 (T.3; 301.3.2SF; 07/09/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 3.40; w. 2.80; th. 2.20 cm. Gley 2 5/1, bluish gray. Conglomerate. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202– 203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb18 (T.3; 301.3.1SF; 07/11/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.00; w. 1.90; th. 1.00 cm. Gley 1 5/1, greenish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224– 225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb19 (T.3; 301.3.1SF; 07/11/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.50; w. 1.60; th. 1.30 cm. Gley 2 4/1, dark bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224– 225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb20 (T.3; 301.4.1SF; 07/11/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.10; w. 1.60; th. 1.30 cm. 5YR 4/4, reddish brown. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I. Pb21 (T.4; 401.1.1SF; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pebble, small. L. 3.70; w. 2.50; th. 1.50 cm. Gley 2 4/1– 7/1, dark bluish gray to light bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb22 T.4; 401.2.2SF; 07/18/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.20; w. 1.80; th. 1.10 cm. Gley 2 5/1–6/1, bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224– 225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb23 (T.4; 401.2.2SF; 07/18/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.20; w. 1.40; th. 0.70 cm. 7.5YR 7/6, reddish yellow. Conglomerate. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb24 (T.5; 501.1.1SF; 07/11/2011; stratum 1; Pl. 20). Pebble, small. L. 2.40; w. 2.10; th. 1.00 cm. Gley 2 5/1– 61, blueish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb25 (T.5; 501.2.2SF; 07/15/2011; stratum 1; Pl. 20). Pebble, small. L. 2.70; w. 2.50; th. 1.50 cm. Color: 10R 3/3 dusky red. Chert-mudstone. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb26 (T.5; 501.1.3SF; 07/15/2011; stratum 1). Pebble, small. L. 2.30; w. 2.10; th. 0.60 cm. 7.5YR, 5/4 brown. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb27 (T.6; 601.1.1SF; 07/19/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.90; w. 1.60; th. 0.80 cm. 5YR 5/4, reddish brown. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225;

92

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I. Pb28 (T.6; 602.2.1SF; 07/21/2011; stratum 1). Pebble, small. L. 1.70; w. 0.80; th. 0.50 cm. 10YR 8/4, very pale brown. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224– 225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb29 (T.6; 601.2.2SF; 07/23/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.80; w. 1.60; th. 1.00 cm. Gley 2 5/1, bluish gray. Chert-mudstone. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb30 (T.6; 601.2.1SF; 07/23/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.90; w. 1.60; th. 0.90 cm. 2.5YR 3/3, dark reddish brown, to Gley 2 6/1, greenish gray. Chertmudstone. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224– 225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb31 (T.6; 601.W.3.1SF; 07/23/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.20; w. 2.10; th. 1.50 cm. Gley 2 5/1, bluish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I. Pb32 (T.6; 601.W.3.5SF; 07/25/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 4.20; w. 3.60; th. 2.50 cm. 2.5YR 3/4, dark reddish brown. Chert-mudstone. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb33 (T.6; 601.W.3.2SF; 07/25/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.80; w. 1.20; th. 0.50 cm. 2.5YR 3/4, dark reddish brown. Schist. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb34 (T.6; 601.W.3.3SF; 07/25/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.90; w. 1.60; th. 0.50 cm. Gley 2 3/1–4/1, very dark bluish gray to dark bluish gray. Schist. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb35 (T.6; 601.W.3.1SF; 07/25/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 1.50; w. 1.30; th. 0.60 cm. 5YR 4/2, dark reddish gray. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III–LM I. Pb36 (T.6; 601.W.3.1SF; 07/26/2011; stratum 2). Pebble, small. L. 2.10; w. 1.80; th. 0.90 cm. 5YR 6/8, reddish yellow. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 202–203, 224–225; 2013, 121; Banou 2012, 358, p1.18:127. Date: MM III– LM I.

Chert Another category of find from Leska is comprised of nine pieces of chert (Ch1–Ch9; Pl. 20). These

items are small pieces rather than flakes from tool production. The chert pieces often have part of the cortex preserved, and they rarely have a sharp edge—nonetheless, they were not a product of flintknapping but rather the result of natural or unintentional break. Furthermore, the quality of this material is very low, and the sizes are too small to have been used as nodules for producing flaked tools, especially during the Late Bronze Age. Pieces of chert have been recovered from T.6 (4), T.5 (2), T.4 (2), and T.1 (1) (all in stratum 2 with one exception: Ch8 in stratum 1 in T.6), and they seem to be more patchily dispersed throughout the site than the pebbles. They are found in the southern and western parts of the site as well as in the northern area close to the highest point of the summit. The chert could have come from a limestone environment like the Olonos-Pindos Zone, which is predominate in the central-west part of the island (Kiriatzi 2003, 126). The presence of chert pieces of undefined character, including quartz, at peak sanctuaries has been reported only at Traostalos, attributed to a Neolithic stratum (Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5). Another example of a chert piece associated with an extra-settlement sanctuary has been identified at Aspro Nero in South-East Crete (Schlager et al. 2010, 247, fig. 15:12). The pieces of chert from Leska do not seem to have uniformity of shape, but some larger examples tend to be rectangular. Nonetheless, the size and color are very close to those observed in the pebbles. On average, these pieces are 2.90 cm long, 1.99 cm wide, and 1.27 cm thick (median L. 2.40, w. 1.75, th. 1.10 cm). The colors include reddish (4), gray (2), black (2), and white (1). It should be added that because the chert items did not function as flaked tools, their character as simple lithic offerings is reinforced. Thus, these elements argue convincingly that the chert objects likely had a function similar to that of the pebbles. Ch1 (T.1; 101.1.1SF; 07/04/2011; stratum 2). Chert. L. 1.80; w. 1.00; th. 0.50 cm. 2.5YR 3/4–3/6, dark reddish brown to dark red. Irregular shape; small part of cortex preserved. Parallels: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III–LM I. Ch2 (T.4; 401.2.3SF; 07/18/2011; stratum 2). Chert, unworked. L. 3.10; w. 2.30; th. 1.60 cm. Gley 2 2.5/1– 3/1, bluish black to very dark bluish gray. Irregular shape; poor quality. Parallels: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III–LM I.

SMALL FINDS

Ch3 (T.4; 401.2.1SF; 07/19/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Chert. L. 4.00; w. 2.70; th. 1.40 cm. 10YR 8/1, white. Irregular shape; poor quality. Parallels: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III–LM I. Ch4 (T.5; 501.1.1SF; 07/12/2011; stratum 1). Chert. L. 1.40; w. 1.20; th. 0.70 cm. 2.5YR 3/6, dark red. Irregular shape. Comparanda: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III–LM I. Ch5 (T.5; 501.2.1SF; 07/15/2011; stratum 1; Pl. 20). Chert. L. 2.10; w. 1.60; th. 0.90 cm. 2.5YR 4/4, weak red. Irregular shape; part of cortex. Parallels: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III– LM I. Ch6 (T.6; 601.2.2SF; 07/20/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Chert. L. 5.80; w. 3.70; th. 2.20 cm. Gley 2 2.5/1–3/1, bluish black to very dark bluish gray. Irregular shape; part of cortex; poor quality. Parallels: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III–LM I. Ch7 (T.6; 601.2.1SF; 07/21/2011; stratum 2). Chert. L. 2.40; w. 1.10; th. 1.00 cm. 2.5YR 4/6–8/1, red to white. Irregular shape; poor quality. Parallels: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III– LM I. Ch8 (T.6; 602.2.1SF; 07/23/2011; stratum 1; Pl. 20). Chert. L. 2.50; w. 1.90; th. 0.50 cm. Gley 2 3/1–4/1, very dark bluish gray to dark bluish gray. Irregular shape; part of cortex; poor quality. Parallels: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III–LM I. Ch9 (T.6; 602.W.3.4SF; 07/25/2011; stratum 1). Chert. L. 1.90; w. 1.40; th. 1.10 cm. Gley 2 3/1, very dark bluish gray. Irregular shape; poor quality. Parallels: Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 5. Date: MM III–LM I.

Stone Tools Obsidian Surprisingly, only one piece of obsidian, blade ST1 (Pl. 20), is the only flaked stone tool recovered so far at Leska. The pieces of chert found at Leska described above are unworked, and they could not have been used as tools. Stone tool ST1 comprises the medial part of a blade, and it was found in stratum 2 in T.6. Its character in the context from which it was recovered remains unclear: it could be either an offering or a piece discarded due to damage. Obsidian tools during the LBA are not as common as in earlier periods, especially in sites associated with cultic activities. Two medial parts of blades have been recovered at Hagios Georgios sto

93

Vouno, where no earlier (EBA) occupation has been identified (Banou 2000, 384; 2012, 353–354, fig. 261, pl. 17:120; Sakellarakis 2011, 229; 2013, 76). At Protopalatial Atsipades, 80.00% of which has been excavated, only a single obsidian blade has been recovered (Peatfield 1992, 66, 74), while obsidian pieces from both Melos and Giali have been reported at Juktas (Karetsou 1978, 238). Pieces of obsidian are also known to have been deposited at the Kato Syme sacred enclosure (Kyriakidis 2005a, table 6), and they have been noted in sacred caves such as Faneromeni and Ida (Jones 1999, table 8). At the Stou Mamaloukou peak sanctuary (MM IB) in the Pediada, several obsidian flakes and cores have been recovered (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011, 211). It has been proposed that a MM IA building functioned there as a workshop before the use of this site as a sanctuary. Nevertheless, they point out the close relationship between obsidian consumption and rituals, and the medical and/or magical properties attributed to these volcanic and exotic items in the Aegean and broader Eastern Mediterranean (Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2011, 211). In contrast to the cases detailed above, obsidian blades, flakes, and cores occur commonly at Kastri (Huxley 1972, 205–207, 209–210, 213–214, pls. 61, 62). Thus, the material was widely available on Kythera, but it is far more commonly attested in settlements rather than sanctuaries and tombs. Schist A square-shaped item made of schist (ST2) was found in stratum 1 in the western part of T.6 (Pl. 20). Its use is unclear, but it could have been the simple lid of a small closed vessel due to its wellmade shape; alternatively, it may have been deposited there like the pebbles and pieces of chert. Some pieces of schist associated with many small pebbles were also recovered at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Sakellarakis 2011, 224–225). The material must have been brought from the northern part of the island, where schist is available in local geological strata. Pestle Only one definite stone tool, partly preserved, was found at Leska. Hammerstone/pestle/grinder ST3,

94

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

found in T.6 (stratum 2), was made from goodquality limestone, gray in color and appropriate for this type of tool (Pl. 20). Similar limestone examples of hammerstones/pestles come from MM III–LM I Mochlos (Carter 2004, 63, 65–66, figs. 23:IC.303, 24:IC329), while a small grinder of white stone was recovered at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Banou 2000, 384; 2012, 358, pl. 18:126). Thus, a broader Neopalatial date, MM III–LM I, can be proposed for ST3 as well. Catalog of Stone Tools ST1 (T.6; 601.1.2SF; 07/19/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Blade. L. 2.80; w. 1.40; th. 0.30 cm. Gley 2 3/1, very dark bluish gray. Melian obsidian. Medial part; trapezoidal in section; limited retouch on edges. Parallels: Banou 2000, 384; 2012, 353–354, fig. 261, p1.17:120; Sakellarakis 2011, 229; 2013, 76. Date: MM I–LM I. ST2 (T.6; 602.W.3.6SF; 07/25/2011; stratum 1; Pl. 20). Stone lid(?). L. 3.40; w. 3.50; th. 0.80–1.00 cm. Gley 2 5/1–6/1, bluish gray. Schist. Almost square. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2011, 224–225. Date: MM I–LM I. ST3 (T.6; 601.1.1SF; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pestle. L. 6.60; w. 4.60; th. 2.80 cm. Gley 2 5/1–6/1, bluish gray. Limestone. Half preserved; oval in section. Parallels: Banou 2000, 384; 2012, 358, p1.18:126. Date: MM I–LM I.

Stone Vessels Stone vessels comprise a small category of find at Leska, but they are common to peak sanctuaries. They were made from poros (4), locally known as pori (πορί), and marble (1). All appear to belong to the Neopalatial stone vessel production known in Crete, Kythera, and the Aegean. Basins Two large fragments of stone vessels made out of poros stone, SV1 and SV2 (Pl. 20), were recovered in T.1 (stratum 2) and T.2 (stratum 2). They seem to belong to large stone basins with flat bases and conical bodies. Parallels to these examples can be found at MM III–LM I Mochlos (Carter 2004, 78, figs. 29:IC.425, 30:IC424). Thus, the examples from Leska must also belong to the same phase, which corresponds well to the rest of the diagnostic pottery (see this vol., Ch. 3). They may have been originally used for agricultural, pastoral, or everyday

use, and after that dedicated to the sanctuary. In the latter context, they could have had an in-situ cultic use and/or been offerings to the divinity. Chronologically they seem to belong to the broader Neopalatial period. Cup A smaller poros stone object, SV3, was found in T.6 (stratum 2), and it seems to belong to a small conical cup with raised base (Fig. 14; Pl. 20). At Hagios Georgios, a steatite conical cup with raised base has been reported from the MM III–LM I phase (Banou 2000, 386). In Crete, stone vessels are common during the MM III–LM I period at Knossos, Mochlos, Palaikastro, Akrotiri, Hagia Eirene, and Vapheio, mainly in serpentinite, less so in limestone and marble, and more rarely in rosso antico (Warren 1969, 37–38, figs. D118, D119, pl. P198; Devetzi 2000, 125, fig. 1:Akr.4373, Akr.423, pl. 30:d, e; Bevan 2007, 239, nos. C16, C32B). Limestone and poros are very similar both in their consistency and in the way they need to be worked in order to produce stone vessels. This points toward a common tradition shared in Crete, on Kythera, in the Cyclades, and in Laconia in MM III–LM I, when the Leska piece should be dated. Another small irregular piece of poros, SV4, may belong to a small stone vase of unclear size and shape; it was recovered in T.4 (stratum 2). Libation Table Part of a marble libation table, SV5, was recovered in T.3 (stratum 2a; Fig. 14; Pl. 20). It has a square shape with a round raised collar. The material is white marble but very crystalline, thus making it low quality. Parallels made out of clay and stone have been attested at other peak sanctuaries such as Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and in Crete at Atsipades, Traostalos, Vrysinas, Juktas, Gyristi, Petsophas, and the Kophinas shrine, at sacred caves like Patsos and Psychro, and in other types of sanctuaries such as Koumasa, Anemospelia, Kato Syme (Platon and Davaras 1961–1962, 287; Warren 1969, 62, P327, P338, P339, P340, P348; Jones 1999, table 8; Banou 2000, 386, figs. 8–11; 2003, 69, fig. 6; 2012, 408; Kyriakidis 2005a, 141–143, table 17, figs. 35–37; Sakellarakis 2013, 65–66; Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 253–254, fig. 4:α, β), and Troullos on Kea (in a miniature version;

SMALL FINDS

Caskey 1971, 394, fig. 14:K6-378, pl. 84:d). Parts of four specimens from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno seem not to have exactly the same shape; they are made out of marble and serpentinite and belong to the MM III–LM I period (Banou 2000, 386, figs. 8–11; 2012, 345–349, 367, 407–408). The exact shape of the Leska specimen, however, is closer to two serpentinite examples and one clay, also from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Banou 2012, 326, 347– 348, figs. 175, 244–245, pls. 13:80, 16:105α, 105β). The preserved fragment suggests that it is closer to the type AIb libation table as defined by Jim Muhly (1981, 77, fig. 2a), which belongs to the Neopalatial Cretan tradition. The upper portions of two examples, one from Knossos made of limestone and another at the British Museum made of serpentinite, appear to have a shape similar to the example from Leska, and both are dated to MM III–LM I (Warren 1969, 65, 67–68, nos. P340, P348). Similar in shape are three MM IIIB–LM IB libation tables, one marble, from the Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (Panagiotaki 1999, 123, 173, pl. 21:c–e). Marble was more commonly employed for this type of vessel in the Protopalatial period rather than later, and the description of locally available marble resources in Crete argues for a non-Cretan origin of the material (Warren 1969, 62, 131, 134–135). The only case of a marble libation table from a peak sanctuary is attested at Juktas (Karetsou 1975, 337, fig. 3, pl. 265α). Marble was found in six cases at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, in the form of a pommel, two libation tables, and three ladles (Banou 2000, 384, 386–387, 388; 2012, 345– 350, 357, 367). At Kastri, Neopalatial marble vases include two bowls and a spouted jug made out of a material with gray stripes like crystalline (Coldstream 1972a, nos. ζ.151, ζ.154, pls. 59:ζ.151, 62:ζ.154, 86:O.1; 1972c, 206, nos. 265–266, O.1). A stray marble jug could have belonged to a tomb in the Vothonas area. The material of these examples could have a Greek mainland or Cycladic origin, but the presence of marble is attested in two outcrops in the northern part of the island, at Marmara and close to Potamos (Theodoropoulos 1973, 15). This fact, along with the poor quality of these items from Leska, suggests a local provenance for the SV5. Furthermore, the Cretan shape of this example and the others could indicate it was manufactured in a local workshop with good knowledge of the Minoan stone vase making tradition. Thus, it is possible that

95

the local marble was exploited and manufactured at a Kytherian workshop (contra Huxley 1972, 218). The diverse materials brought from beyond the island for the production of stone vessels would suggest that this workshop was active in the vicinity of the main Minoan port, Kastri. An alternative hypothesis is the presence of yet another workshop manufacturing marble vases, located closer to the source of this material in the northern part of Kythera. Thus, SV5 is one of the few non-pottery items brought to Leska from the central-eastern or northern parts of the island. Catalog of Stone Vessels SV1 (T.1; 101.2.1SF; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Basin. L. 9.20; w. 12.90; th. 6.70 cm. Gley 1 6/1, greenish gray. Poros. Part of flat base with open, straight body. Parallels: Carter 2004, 78, figs 29:IC.425, 30:IC424. Date: MM III–LM I. SV2 (T.2; 202.2.1SF; 07/07/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Basin. L. 12.50; w. 11.80; th. 9.10 cm. Gley 1 6/1, greenish gray. Poros. Part of flat base with open, straight body. Poros. Poros Basin. Parallels: Banou 2000, 386. Date: MM III–LM I. SV3 (T.6; 601.2.1SF; 07/20/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 14; Pl. 20). Conical cup. L. 1.70; w. 2.80; th. 0.70 cm. 7.5 YR 5/6, strong brown. Poros. Part of flat base with round edge and straight body. Parallels: Carter 2004, 78, figs 29:IC.425, 30:IC424. Date: MM III–LM I. SV4 (T.4; 401.1.1SF; 07/13/2011; stratum 2). Open vessel(?). L. 2.20; w. 1.90; th. 1.20 cm. 7.5YR 4/6, strong brown. Poros. Irregular shape. Date: MM III–LM I. SV5 (T. 3; 302.4.1SF; 07/12/2011; stratum 2a; Fig. 14; Pl. 20). Libation table. L. 3.50; w. 3.50; th. 0.60–1.40 cm. 2.5Y 8/1, white. Marble. Part of upright raised rim; clean and white marble of bad quality. Parallels: Banou 2012, 326, 347–348, figs.175, 244–245, Pls.13:80, 16:105α, 105β. Date: MM IIIB–LM IB.

Clay Objects Figurines Animal Figurines The presence of figurines for the characterization of a site as a peak sanctuary is considered almost a sine qua non. These figurines include models of animals, mainly bovine and other domesticated

96

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

and less commonly non domesticated, and humans, males, females, and individual parts of the human body (Jones 1999, tables 2, 3; Kyriakidis 2005a, 147–149). In the vast majority of cases, the medium used for making these figurines is clay, but there are rare cases of metal, notably at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, where a large number of bronze human figurines have been recovered (Sakellarakis 1996, 88; 2011, 334–335; Banou 2003, 69–70; 2007, 286). Nevertheless, animals and human limb are very common but not omnipresent at peak sanctuaries, unlike human figurines (Jones 1999, tables 2, 3, contra Kyriakidis 2005a, 149– 157, 163, tables 21–23, 27). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno in particular the clay figurines were limited, while animal figurines were scarce (Sakellarakis 1996, 88; 2011, 334–336, fig. 266; 2013, 73–75). At Leska, there is a single example, F1, the head of an animal figurine (Pl. 20). It represents a bovine, the most common animal figurine type, and it has parts of its horns broken off. This figurine is small in size, handmade, and made out of fine buff clay. It was recovered in T.1, very close to the exposed natural bedrock situated at the highest point of the Leska peak. A broad chronological horizon of MM III–LM I is proposed for this object. Similar treatment of animal heads is found in some of examples from Gyristi and Vrysinas, but in the latter the animals were attached to pots (Tzachili 2011, fig. 71; Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 254, fig. 5:στ; Viglaki and Daskalakis 2016, 237, 240, 246, pls. 77:35, 36, 79:55, 81:71). Yannis Sakellarakis (1996, 89) and later Evangelos Kyriakidis (2005a, 149, 156–157) hypothesize that the limited number of animal figurines at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno could be negative evidence for the importance of the sea and the role of Kastri as a nexus in trade routes. People visiting would have been more interested in the sea and traveling rather than in animals. This explanation is plausible, but the finds from Leska provide a broader picture of this period on Kythera and its social, cultural, economic, political, and even religious characteristics. Leska is located in the largest mountainous region of the island, an area that pastoralists definitely would have exploited. Nevertheless, a limited number of animal figurines were offered to the sanctuary to protect and/or enhance the fertility of flocks. This observation, along with the limited number of animal figurines at Hagios

Georgios sto Vouno, would suggest that their dedication was not considered an important aspect of the cult practices at the peak sanctuaries on Kythera. Perhaps this aspect is associated with the beliefs, performed rituals, and powers attributed to the deities worshipped at these sites. For Peatfield, in order to characterize a peak sanctuary as a sacred site, it is not only that figurines always should be recovered, but also that they should be numerous (1983; Peatfield and Morris 2012, 229). The same conviction on the importance of figurines in peak sanctuaries is attested by Rutkowski (1986, 85–87). This circumstance is confirmed by the few Cretan sanctuaries from which this type of material has been studied, such as Atsipades (MM IB–II), Keria (MM II–III), and Vrysinas (MM IB–III; Peatfield 1990; Kordatzaki 2012, 399). At MM IB–LM IB Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, however, the total number of figurines—both clay and bronze—is 255, including architectural models (Banou 2012). The method of associating clay figurines with peak sanctuaries has been questioned by Gerald Cadogan (1988, 98). Kyriakidis (2005a, 18–19) traces this idea further: In our category of “peak sanctuaries”, figurines are attested at all sites. However, if a non-domestic site were to be found on a peak, special in the same way as all the other members of the “peak sanctuary” class, but with no figurines, it could be considered a “peak sanctuary”. Thus, and contrary to [Bogdan] Rutkowski’s conviction, the presence of figurines, pebbles and possibly other items, is a non-generative trait of the “peak sanctuary” class, but a trait that most sites share.

Sakellarakis (2013, 6–7) has criticized directly Peatfield’s criterion of the three figurine types, proposing that there were variations in the needs of worshippers across Crete. Thus, for him no uniformity should be expected in the material culture or the practices and rituals that were taking place at these sanctuaries (Sakellarakis 2013, 48). A most remarkable point is the limited occurrence of clay human figurines primarily, and of animals secondarily at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, while no example belongs with certainty to the Protopalatial phase of the peak sanctuary. When comparing the number of figurines found there to those from the smaller and shorter-lived sites of Vrysinas, Atsipades, and Keria, the difference

SMALL FINDS

becomes more apparent. What can be suggested strongly, taking into account the amount of pottery collected at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, is that figurines did not play any significant role in performed rituals. They were rarely brought as offerings during the long life of this peak sanctuary, and when they were offered, they were related to the socioeconomic standing of the donor rather than the rituals performed at the site. The symbolic protection of humans, animals, and parts of the human body may not have been among the priorities of the visitors asking favors of or thanking the deity(-ies) at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, or worship was expressed in different or varying ways. Two important points can be raised from this discussion. First, the limited quantity of figurines at Leska was a local idiosyncrasy of the cult at this particular peak sanctuary, which may also suggest divergence on Kythera from the main cult practices in Crete. Second, the comparison with large assemblages from Vrysinas, Atsipades, and Keria argues very strongly for regionalism in practices and perhaps also rituals. Whether this divergence has spatial, chronological, or other implications is not yet understood. Horns of Consecration The clay horns of consecration from Leska have a flat rectangular base with a round end that has a thin vertical wall close to its edge. In examples where the vertical wall is better preserved, it resembles the form of a horn like those belonging to horns of consecration. It should be noted that in all the recovered pieces, however, the other end with the second horn is not preserved. There are four such examples from Leska, all made out of fine buff clay (F2–F5; Fig. 14; Pl. 20), which have been recovered exclusively in T.2 (2) and T.3 (2). The same good quality clay also was used in the majority of examples from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Banou 2012, 300–308, 363). The pieces at Leska are similarly made, but their widths and thicknesses vary, arguing that they were not uniform in their construction. In some examples the base on the lower part seems to have been made from a U-shaped piece of clay. Example F2 from T.2 is comprised of two joining pieces that broke along the joining line of the U-shaped bottom (Pl. 20). Whether it was intentionally made to be broken

97

remains unclear, but such a possibility should be considered. Another example, F4, has two long, parallel, cylindrical pieces of clay attached under the flat base, possibly representing reeds or thin wood beams, suggesting that it could have been part of a larger model. Most probably the horns of consecration from Leska belong in the Neopalatial period (MM III–LM I). Horns of consecration are a religious symbol whose meaning and role in Minoan society are not satisfactorily understood. They have been considered bull horns and, more recently, two mountains defining a horizon in between which the sun raises, based on Egyptian and Near Eastern motifs and symbolic meanings (Moss 2005, 212; Banou 2008, 30–42; 2012, 399–400; Rethemiotakis 2008, 86; Marinatos 2010, 107). Nevertheless, they commonly are recovered in sites where important cultic activities were taking place, indicating some type of symbolic importance. Horns of consecration usually are represented in stone and form part of the architecture of a settlement shrine, and on occasion they may have had a practical use in cultic activities. Most of the peak sanctuaries in Crete did not possess buildings, and therefore horns of consecration are rare. Still, they occur in clay in some cases, enhancing the recognition of this site as a sanctuary. Clay horns of consecration have been attested at Etiani Kefala, Petsophas, Vrysinas, Juktas, and possibly Xykefalo, and stone versions were found at Pyrgos (Karetsou 1975, 335; Jones 1999, 11; Kyriakidis 2005a, 164, table 28; Tzachili 2011, fig. 68; 2016, fig. 3; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2011, 302; Sakellarakis 2013, 64–65). Twentyfour clay horns of consecration also were found at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, in one case in the form of an applique on a pottery vessel (Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2011, 335, fig. 237; 2013, 64; Banou 2003, 69–70; 2007, 286; 2012, 300–308, 363–364, figs. 53, 54, pl. 9). Alternatively, horns of consecration may have formed parts of clay house models, more specifically placed on the roof and thus signifying the cultic character of the model. House models have been recovered in different types of sanctuaries in Crete already from the MM III phase, both within urban contexts as well as extra urban, such as at Piskokefalo where horns of consecration appear on the roofs of models of religious buildings (Platon

98

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

1952, 635, fig. 16; Schoep 1994a; Rethemiotakis 2001, 124). House models are uncommon in peak sanctuaries, and they have been recovered at Kophinas, Petsophas, Pyrgos, Filioremos, Juktas, and Gournos; at the latter, model horns of consecration are partly preserved (Karetsou 1975, 228–339, pl. 266ε; Rethemiotakis 2001, 124; 2009, 196, figs. 16.13–16.15; Kyriakidis 2005a, 158–160, table 24; E. Kyriakidis, pers. comm., 22 June 2014). Thirtyone architectural models are also attested at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Banou 2003, 69–70; 2007, 286– 288; 2012, 308–322, 364–365, figs. 59–66, pls. 11, 12; Sakellarakis 2011, 335–336, fig. 251). Whether bull horns or mountains, the overall symbolic significance of horns of consecration is similar, but their use may have been different. At Vrysinas, the horns of consecration were attached to the wide rims of basins dated to the MM II phase (Tzachili 2016, 75– 77, pl. 8:32). The bases of these clay horns of consecration preserved at Vrysinas are identical in form to the examples from Leska. The horns of consecration from Leska do not preserve surviving parts or even broken areas to suggest that they were connected to something else or were part of a larger model. The latter scenario could be envisaged only if the part were a non-attached, easily removable roof. In any case, horns of consecration are more common in the early Neopalatial period (MM III–LM IA) in both Crete and the Aegean islands (Briault 2007b, 253, fig. 8, table 3). The contexts from which many have been recovered, as well as their iconographic representations, suggest that in Crete and Akrotiri on Thera they demarcated sacred space, associated with either buildings or altars (Briault 2007b, 254, fig. 4). The symbolic meaning of two mountains and the sun is very interesting for the Leska sanctuary, especially when considering its intervisibility with Hagios Georgios sto Vouno to the east. In that context, the movement of the sun on specific days of the year could have been perceived as symbolically linking the two sites. Catalog of Figurines F1 (T.1; 101.2.2SF; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Animal figurine. L. 1.60; w. 1.70; th. 0.80–0.90 cm. 10YR 7/6, yellow. Clay, fine. Part of bull’s head and horn. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 88; 2011, 334–336, fig. 266; 2013, 73–75. Date: MM III–LM I.

F2 (T.2; 202.2.1–2SF; 07/05/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Horns of consecration. L. 3.60; w. 2.70; th. 1.50–2.20 cm. 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Clay, fine. Part of flat base; on top, vertical extension forming horn. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2011, 335, fig. 237; 2013, 64; Banou 2003, 69–70; 2007, 286; 2012, 300–308, 363–364, figs. 53, 54, pl. 9. Date: MM III–LM I. F3 (T.2; 202.2.1SF; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Horns of consecration. L. 3.20; w. 20; th. 1.30 cm. 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Clay, fine. Part of flat base, flat upper part, and U-shaped lower part with vertical extension forming a horn of consecration on top. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2011, 335, fig. 237; 2013, 64; Banou 2003, 69–70; 2007, 286; 2012, 300–308, 363–364, figs. 53, 54, pl. 9. Date: MM III–LM I. F4 (T.3; 301.2.1SF; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Horns of consecration. L. 3.50; w. 2.60; th. 1.40 cm. 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Clay, fine. Part of flat base, flat upper part, and U-shaped lower part with vertical extension forming a horn of consecration on top. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2011, 335, fig. 237; 2013, 64; Banou 2003, 69–70; 2007, 286; 2012, 300–308, 363–364, figs. 53, 54, pl. 9. Date: MM III–LM I. F5 (T.3; 301.3.1SF; 07/09/2011; stratum 2; Fig. 14; Pl. 20). Horns of consecration. L. 2.90; w. 2.20; th. 1.0–1.90 cm. 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Clay, fine. Part of flat base and U-shaped area with vertical extension forming a horn of consecration on top. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2011, 335, fig. 237; 2013, 64; Banou 2003, 69–70; 2007, 286; 2012, 300–308, 363–364, figs. 53, 54, pl. 9. Date: MM III–LM I.

Clay Balls Clay balls are small, simple objects, spherical or roughly spherical in shape, which are rare but known to be found at peak sanctuaries in Crete. They have been associated variously with ritual acts, prayers, and figurines (Myres 1902–1903, 382; S. Marinatos 1976, 24; Rutkowski 1986, 85; 1991, 35; Kyriakidis 2005a, 152, table 21). Petsophas is the first site where clay balls have been noted within a peak sanctuary context. There they number 19 and range from 1.30–2.50 cm in diameter (Myres 1902– 1903, 378–380; Jones 1999, 11; Banou 2012, 406). At Traostalos a single clay ball was found, and it has been associated with beetle figurines also recovered at the site (Chryssoulaki 1999, 316; 2001, 62); this association can be claimed only for this site. Clay balls have also been attested at Juktas, Vrysinas, and Kato Syme (Karetsou 1974, 230; 1978, 247; Jones 1999, 11, table 7; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 21;

SMALL FINDS

Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2010, 454; Banou 201 2, 406). At Juktas, Alexandra Karetsou calls them “clay pebbles,” and they were found along with clay bird figurines, MM IB–IIA pottery sherds, and a stone kernos with small cavities measuring 1.00– 1.20 cm in diameter. Another larger group of clay balls with diameters of 1.00–1.50 cm, some rhomboid in shape, were found in a Protopalatial pit also associated with another stone kernos similar to that at Juktas (Karetsou 2012, 91, figs. 10.2, 10.14). Karetsou believes that the kernoi were used for the practice of rituals, but she does not associate them directly with the pebbles or clay balls (2012, 94). Nevertheless, the most intriguing case is the single clay ball from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, suggesting that this rare Cretan practice had been transplanted to Kythera as well (Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2013, 77, fig. 39; Banou 2012, 406–407, pl. 1). Eleni Banou argues that clay and stone balls (pebbles) were thrown into fires as part of a ritual asking favors from the deities, as practiced in Buddhism (2012, 406). Spherical balls made in stone are known from the Kophinas shrine, where they were made out of rock crystal or steatite (Platon and Davaras 1961–1962, 288; Rutkowski 1986, 85). Furthermore, stone balls have been recovered from contexts outside peak sanctuaries, like in Tholos E of the cemetery at Phourni, Archanes with an average diameter of 1.5 cm, as well as at the West House in Akrotiri on Thera (Tzachili 1992, 144; 2007, 256– 258; Panagiotopoulos 2002, 102–104, pl. 76:J8, J28; Banou 2012, 406). The 18 examples from the West House were made from different stones and range from 2.00–5.00 cm in diameter; their use as weight standards has been proposed (Tzachili 2007, 258). Stone versions from habitation and burial contexts have been associated with boarding games also recovered in these contexts (Banou 2012, 406), but a cultic aspect has not been dismissed completely (Tzachili 2007, 258). At Leska, five clay balls have been recovered (CB1–CB5; Pl. 20). They are oval and roughly spherical in shape, and their sizes vary from 0.80– 1.70 cm, similar to those from the aforementioned sites. Their sizes also are very close to those of the pebbles collected and deposited at Leska (see above). The clay balls seem to be concentrated in a particular area of the site, because they have been

99

uncovered only from T.3 (2), T.4 (1), and T.6 (2). Two (CB3, CB4) are made of fine clay and are orange in color, and one (CB5) has a red micaceous fabric and is brown in color. The final two examples (CB1, CB2) are dark reddish brown in color without many inclusions, and they are friable and seem to have been fired in very low temperatures. The contexts from which they were recovered argue that they belong to the broader Neopalatial period—that is, the MM III–LM I phase. The symbolic meaning of clay balls in peak sanctuaries is rather unclear, with suggestions ranging from sling bullets and vaguely defined ritual activities to representations of excrement associated with beetle figurines (Myres 1902–1903, 382; S. Marinatos 1976, 24; Rutkowski 1986, 85; 1991, 35). Equally possible is that these items did not hold the same meaning at every peak sanctuary where they are recovered. With regard to Leska, based on their shapes and sizes it can be proposed that they are clay versions of pebbles. Thus, they would have held the same symbolism as pebbles, chert items, and possibly also the piece of schist, only in that they were brought by the worshippers from their houses to the sanctuary rather than collected along their routes. CB1 (T.3; 301.3.3SF; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Clay ball. D. 1.30–1.50 cm. 2.5YR 3/4, dark reddish brown. Fine clay with inclusions. Roughly spherical; rough surface; fired at low temperature. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2013, 77, fig. 39; Banou 2012, 406–407, pl. 1. Date: MM III–LM I. CB2 (T.3; 301.3.4SF; 07/11/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Clay ball. D. 1.40–1.50 cm. 2.5YR 3/4, dark reddish brown. Fine clay with inclusions. Roughly spherical ball; rough surface; fired at low temperature. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2013, 77, fig. 39; Banou 2012, 406–407, pl. 1. Date: MM III–LM I. CB3 (T. 4; 401.A.11SF; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Clay ball. L. 1.10; w. 1.10; th. 0.6–0.80 cm. 10YR 7/4, very pale brown. Fine clay. Irregular round ball; smooth surface. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2013, 77, fig. 39; Banou 2012, 406–407, pl. 1. Date: MM III– LM I. CB4 (T. 6; 601.1.1SF; 07/18/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Clay ball. L. 1.50; w. 1.30; th. 1.20 cm. 5YR 7/8, reddish yellow. Fine clay. Oval ball; smooth surface. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2013, 77, fig. 39; Banou 2012, 406– 407, pl. 1. Date: MM III–LM I. CB5 (T. 6; 601.2.1SF; 07/21/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Clay ball. L. 1.70; w. 1.40; th. 0.90 cm. 7.5 YR 5/6,

100

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

strong brown. Red Micaceous clay. Irregular round ball; smooth surface. Parallels: Sakellarakis 1996, 86; 2013, 77, fig. 39; Banou 2012, 406–407, pl. 1. Date: MM III–LM I.

Metal Objects Metal items are rare and appear in rather limited numbers in peak sanctuaries in Crete. In fact, it was thought for a time that they were absent intentionally. There are some reports of metal items, however, from Petsophas, Maza, the Kophinas shrine, Vrysinas, Karphi, Modi, Traostalos, and Juktas (Platon and Davaras 1961–1962, 288; Karetsou 1974, 229– 230, 232; 1980, 344; Jones 1999, table 4; Kyriakidis 2005a, 144–146, 161–162, tables 19, 20, 25, figs. 39, 40). As noted above, the number of bronze figurines unearthed at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno is unprecedented and followed by numerous other metal items such as sheets, sheet blades, and small pieces (Sakellarakis 1996, 84–86; 2011, 334–335; 2012, 215–218, 231–234, fig. 1; Banou 2003, 69–70; 2007, 286; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2012; Varoufakis 2012, 241–244). This high concentration of bronze objects has provided the basis for hypotheses regarding the colonization of Kythera by Minoans in order to be closer to Laconian metal sources (Sakellarakis 1996, 90; Banou 2000, 389; 2007, 288–289). The only prehistoric metal items recovered at Leska are four bronze pieces, all located in the northern edge of the site around the natural bedrock that marks the highest point of the peak. In particular, one was found on the surface during cleaning just a few centimeters west of the bedrock marking the highest point (M2), two were found in T.1 (M1, M3), and one was found in Cairn 2 (M4). Object M1 was recovered in T.1. It is a globular piece of bronze with a small, broken extension, the overall shape of which resembles the head and upper portion of a globular pin (Pl. 20). A lead pin appears to be one of the rare metal offerings in the Special Deposit South on EC II Keros (Renfrew et al. 2007, 124). Pins also have been attested at Cretan peak sanctuaries like Traostalos and Juktas, suggesting that they were relatively uncommon offerings (Karetsou 1974, 229–230, 232; 1980, 344; Chryssoulaki 1999, 316; 2001, 62). Furthermore, the presence of a “ball head of pin” was reported as an offering at

the sanctuary of Kato Syme (Kyriakidis 2005a, table 20). Similar examples of pins belonging to the broader MM II–LM IA period have also been recovered in Tomb VII of the Ailias cemetery at Knossos; Hood proposed that they held together the burial shroud (Hood 2010, 168, fig. 16.8:k–n). Elsewhere on Kythera, a bone version of a globular-headed pin was found in the fill of Grave 3 in Tomb H at Kastri (Huxley 1972, 252). Based on the previous examples, M1 could have been used in simple burial garment. Object M2, another interesting metal piece was recovered 50.00 cm south of T.1 (Pl. 20). Once part of a bronze vessel, perhaps a handled basin, it has a straight body and a slightly incurving, simple rim. It is partly broken and melted. A small part of its horizontal strap handle survived, but the rest is disfigured as if melted by intense fire. Nevertheless, M2 still was considered suitable as an offering, even in fragmentary form, as was also the case with the metal objects at Kophinas in Crete (Karetsou and Rethemiotakis 1991–1993, 291). Another bronze item, M3, was also recovered in T.1 (Pl. 20). It appears to be a small piece, on one side of which is a helmet, while the other side is flat. This object is a pendant of military character, and it could belong to the Neopalatial period. A similar example of a pendant with a more round than conical upper portion comes from the Greek mainland (also identified as a possible bead; Vasilikou 1995, fig. 208:fourth row, first from left). The final metal object, M4, was found under Cairn 2. It appears to be a thin sheet of bronze (Pl. 20). Its shape is thicker at one point closer to its end, while on the opposite side it seems to be broken. This object could be a simple metal sheet, like the parallels from Juktas, Kophinas, and possibly Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, as noted above. However, it is a wellmade flat piece, thicker than expected for a sheet, and thus it is believed to be a fragment of a miniature bronze knife blade, the portion closer to the hilt, of which a large part is missing. An additional reason for this identification is its close resemblance to an intact example attested at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno with a similar blade arrangement close to the hilt (Sakellarakis 2012, pl. 3:ε, second from right). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, such examples are relatively common offerings, with more than 100 examples (Sakellarakis 2012, 218, fig. 2, pl. 3:ε; 2013, 75). Miniature or regular-sized knife blades are also present at some Cretan peak sanctuaries such as

SMALL FINDS

Modi, Petsophas, Kophinas, Juktas, Vrysinas, Gournos, Gyristi, and at Kato Syme, and they were very popular inside sacred caves in the island (Davaras 1974, 211; Karetsou and Rethemiotakis 1991–1993, 291; Jones 1999, 8, table 4; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 25; Faro 2008, 192; Sakellarakis 2012, 218; Kontopodi, Georgakopoulos, and Spyridakis 2015, 254, fig. 4:δ). A few have also been identified at Troullos hill on Kea (Caskey 1971, 394, pl. 84:e). Two more metal objects were recovered during the excavation at Leska, but they do not belong to the prehistoric period. Two brass heads of hunting cartridges of the late 20th and/or early 21st centuries a.d. were found in the topsoil at the north end of T.1 and the south-west edge of T.4. Their presence adds an additional aspect to the modern use of the Leska summit: occasional visits by hunters during hunting season, especially in September when migrating birds come through Kythera on their annual trip to North Africa. This activity has been confirmed by the modern inhabitants of Mylopotamos village. M1 (T.1; 101.2.1SF; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pinhead. D. 0.70 cm. Bronze. Globular portion with beginning of needle extension attached. Parallels: Karetsou 1974, 229–230, 232; 1980, 344; Chryssoulaki 1999, 316; 2001, 62. Date: MM II–LM IA. M2 (surface; 30.00 cm south of T.1 and west of exposed bedrock at summit; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Basin, part of rim and handle. L. 3.10; w. 2.30; th. 0.70 cm. Bronze. Piece of straight body and slightly incurving simple rim with deformed handle (damaged or overfired). Parallels: Karetsou and Rethemiotakis 1991– 1993, 291. Date: MM III–LM I. M3 (T.1; 101.2.2SF; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Pendant(?). L. 2.60; w. 1.70; th. 0.10 cm. Bronze. Perhaps in form of a helmet. Parallels: Vasilikou 1995, fig. 208:fourth row, first from left. Date: MM III–LM I. M4 (Cairn 2; 07/06/2011; stratum 2; Pl. 20). Miniature knife blade. L. 4.40; w. 1.70; th. 0.10 cm. Bronze. Miniature; handle piece missing. Parallels: Sakellarakis 2012, p1.3:ε, second from right. Date: MM III–LM I.

Other Small Finds Glass Two pieces of glass were recovered in the upper strata of the excavation, one in T.1 and one in T.3

101

(not cataloged). The first was found in a rather fragmentary state and disintegrated when collected, possibly due to prolonged exposure to the elements. It was transparent white in color and translucent in places, reminiscent of Hellenistic and Roman examples. Although the majority of finds from T.1 were Minoan in date, there were also a few Classical finds. Cairn 2 nearby also produced mainly Classical finds. These finds could explain the presence and date of the glass find in T.1. The piece of glass in T.3 also was found in the topsoil, and it is a small part of the rim from a modern glass bottle of white semi-transparent color. Despite the fact that it is the only modern find from this trench, and it was found along with a Classical sherd, a few meters to the south in T.4, the presence of a brass hunting cartridge argues for modern use of this area as well.

Bones The lack of comprehensive archaeological reports obscures information about the degree to which bones were present at peak sanctuaries. There are references to the recovery of bones from Ano Vigla, Filioremos, and Juktas (Alexiou 1966, 322; Kyriakidis 2005a, table 8). A very limited number of bones also have been noted at the peak sanctuary of Traostalos, but they are conspicuously absent at Atsipades (Peatfield 1992, 66; Chryssoulaki 2001, 60, 63). The few examples from Vrysinas were recovered in the topsoil, and none seems to be associated with the Minoan stratum of the site (Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2011, 298). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, as well, a few bones have been recovered in some of the trenches (Sakellarakis 2011, 204, 230, 264, 266, 273). Bones are rarely attested in the excavation at Leska, with only two fragmentary pieces, one from T.1 and one from T.5 (uncataloged). Both of these examples are small in size, and they must have belonged to small animals. The first was a very small, broken piece and the other resembled a full rat skeleton. The latter was recovered underneath Cairn 1, which produced no other finds and is considered modern. Both bones were recovered in the topsoil near the surface, suggesting that they do not belong to the prehistoric phase.

102

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Discussion Spatial Distribution The non-pottery prehistoric objects from Leska are limited, numbering 67 and consisting of 0.38% of the total finds recovered from this site. The main categories of materials under discussion below follow the types presented above: stone, clay, and metal. The spatial distribution of all material categories is uneven throughout the trenches, as discussed above (see this vol., pp. 22–29). This irregular distribution is more emphatically seen when all individual small finds are analyzed, as their occurrence is not related to the number of sherds recovered or to the size of the trenches. Most were found in T.2, T.3, and T.6, which are situated in the middle of the area of the sanctuary (Ill. 4). The vast majority of the clay small finds were deposited in these three central trenches as well, arguing that some of the practices performed at the sanctuary were localized in this area. The only type of offering recovered from all trenches was pebbles. A special mention also should be made to the concentration of small finds around T.1 on the northern edge of the site; such finds are less attested in T.4 and T.5. The largest diversity of finds occurred in T.6, including a large number of pebbles, chert pieces, and stone tools/vessels (Ill. 4). Interestingly enough, though this trench is located at the western edge of the site, many votive offerings were placed there. As noted above, T.6 forms the central area of the sanctuary along with T.2 and T.3, the latter of which has almost as many and as diverse small finds. The situation in the northern edge of the site is somewhat different, because it involves finds from the surface, T.1, and Cairn 2 (Ill. 4). These three contexts are situated around the exposed natural bedrock denoting the highest point of the summit: the surface context was located a few centimeters to the west of the bedrock exposed on the summit, T.1 a few centimeters to its north, and Cairn 2 farther to the north-east, all located on lower elevations. As noted previously (see this vol., pp. 23– 24, 28–29), the finds from T.1 and Cairn 2 seem to have been the result of movement downslope from the bedrock at the highest point that forms the northern end of the site. The small finds here included the only animal figurine, a large part of

a poros basin, two pebbles (Pb1, Pb2), a piece of chert (Ch1), and, more significantly, all four metal objects (M1–M4). There is no doubt that these finds were deposited as votive offerings and at the same time demarcated this area as one of, if not the most significant location in the sanctuary, emphasizing its role in beliefs and rituals. This natural bedrock was the focal point around which the most prestigious offerings were placed, perhaps acting as gifts to the divinity(-ies), giving thanks or requesting aid. Thus, a role similar to that of a baetyl could be proposed for the bedrock area, adding a significant aspect to the rituals that were performed at this sanctuary.

Materials The most numerous small finds are the stone objects, which can be divided into unworked and worked. In the first category are the pebbles and chert pieces, both of which occur in the surrounding area of Mt. Mermigkari and, more specifically, in the lowland east of Leska in the Mylopotamos region and farther south. The pieces of schist derive from a geological area located in northwest Kythera, suggesting the wider movement and/or circulation of material throughout the entire island. The smaller pieces are irregular in shape (Pb33, Pb34), but the larger piece of schist is worked and square in shape (ST2). The worked pieces appear to be larger in size as compared to the unworked, and they represent tools and other practical objects. The most popular stone material was the local poros, whose source is located in the wider Mitata municipality in the center of the island, and it was used mainly for lowquality stone vessels. Poros was used for two basins (SV1, SV2) and a conical cup (SV3) recovered at Leska, which had a practical and everyday use. The piece of a libation table (SV5), which had a more specialized use and was more directly related to rituals, in particular libations, was made of marble. It is more skillfully executed than any other stone object from the site, but at the same time it is most likely that it was a local product, based on the low quality of the marble and the location of a source in the Potamos region. Nevertheless, it should be noted that marble was not a popular material for making

SMALL FINDS

vessels in Crete during the MM III–LM I period (Warren 1969, 131, 134–135). Finally, there is a single blade of obsidian (ST1), which is the only material definitely imported from outside Kythera. Based on the number and the character of similar finds from Kastri (i.e., cores and flakes), it seems that obsidian probably came to the island from Melos as both prepared and unprepared cores to be worked by knappers (Huxley 1972, 217). Thus, manufacture most probably took place at Kastri, and possibly in other sites, and circulated from there to the rest of the settlements across Kythera. When compared to Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, the worked stone objects recovered at Leska are quite different in material, with some similarities in shape (Sakellarakis 1996, 83–84; Banou 2000, 384– 388; 2003, 69–71; 2007, 286); the same applies, to a lesser extent, to the stone objects recovered in the Kastri tombs (Huxley 1972, 228, 233, 243, 259–261, 265–266). Poros has not been reported outside Leska, and marble is uncommon. The obsidian blade (ST1) is the only worked stone object that finds parallels at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, where a few pieces have been attested (Banou 2000, 384). Although at Leska the tradition of depositing stone vessels and tools was followed, as at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and other peak sanctuaries in Crete, a local syntax was followed (Jones 1999, table 8; Kyriakidis 2005a, tables, 15, 17). This system included different shapes and different materials, thus arguing for differing needs, levels of wealth, access to resources, circulation patterns, ritual practices, socioeconomic conditions, and perhaps even religious beliefs. This divergence is an idiosyncratic characteristic but at the same time fits well into broader practices and offerings at peak sanctuaries. The stone objects at Leska, with the exception of the libation table (SV5) and the conical cup (SV3), have clear bucolic characteristics, providing an understanding of the people who visited the sanctuary and deposited offerings. In order to fully comprehend the importance of the differences between Leska and other peak sanctuaries, the stone objects should be viewed alongside the rest of the finds for a better understanding of the site. The clay small finds are limited in number, exemplified by only 11 objects including an animal figurine, horns of consecration, and clay balls. All of these objects find parallels at Hagios Georgios sto

103

Vouno, and they are well known at other peak sanctuaries. In this category of finds, Leska’s divergence from the norm is in its lack of human figurines, the limited occurrence of animal figurines, and the relative popularity of the horns of consecration and clay balls. Still, all of these small finds fit well within the traditions that seem to have existed at all peak sanctuaries. The clay fabric of these objects argues that they mainly come from central-east Kythera and the workshops closer to Kastri, and less often from those around Potamos to the north. Even though the presence of metal finds is limited to just four examples at Leska, their occurrence is significant when also considering both Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and the Cretan peak sanctuaries. The types of metal items found at the sanctuary appear to have a different character than the other offerings, and they can be divided into two categories. First, some of them are dedications of personal objects like the pin and the pendant (M1, M3). These items could have been offerings from individuals asking for or thanking the deity for a favor. Second, there are items that do not have personal character or practical use of any kind, for example, the melted piece of a metal basin(?) (M2) and the sheet. They may have been presented to the deity due to the value of their materials, although in one case, the melted basin piece (M2), an object was deposited after its cycle of use had ended. A similar case is the dedication of copper ingots near Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, which were used as votive offerings rather than worked as raw material (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007, 221; Kiriatzi et al. 2012, 297; Varoufakis 2012, 246). Thus, objects at both peak sanctuaries seem to have been deposited because of the value their raw materials represent. These particular objects at Leska do not have the characteristics of personal items, and thus they could have been offerings made collectively by a family rather than by individuals. The rarity of the metal offerings in general suggests that they were considered high status dedications, an observation that accords well with the overall picture of this sanctuary as well as with a broader image including other peak sanctuaries. The contrast in number to Hagios Georgios sto Vouno is clear, but the presence of these items suggests that metal was circulated in the hinterland of the island and was deposited as offerings even in remote sanctuaries.

104

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

The analysis of the miniature clay vessels was discussed previously (see this vol., Ch. 3, pp. 83–84). Miniature clay objects also have been recovered at Leska, such as the animal figurine (F1) and the horns of consecration. There is also one bronze knife bladelet (M4). It was recovered at the northern end of the site, on the highest point of the summit near the largest area of exposed bedrock, in a context that also contained miniature ceramic vessels. Skeuomorphism is present but limited to the animal figurine and horns of consecration. The clay pebbles also could be considered skeuomorphs for stone pebbles, thus retaining the same symbolic meaning. Apart from clay examples other than vases, there is also a poros stone conical cup recovered at this site that can be considered a skeumorph (SV3).

Production and Circulation From the three categories of material thus far discussed, the one that needs the least discussion is clay. This is because the clay fabrics are identical to those already noted and analyzed for the pottery, and they most probably were made by the same potters as part of their normal work rather than by specialized craftsmen. The available evidence suggests that the circulation of the clay small finds followed that of the pottery, with the majority coming from the central-east part of the island to Leska. Nevertheless, specialized craftsmen, either individuals and/or part of a workshop, are expected to have worked on stone and bronze materials. The low quality of the stone objects, of both poros and marble, argue for the exploitation of local resources. This aspect, along with the fact that both sources of these materials were located inland, would suggest the presence of workshops near their outcrops. Thus, the circulation and exchange network of the marble is related to the north and is similar, if not identical to that of the pottery produced in this region. The specialized character of the marble libation table (SV5) at Leska and the possible examples at Kastri and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno would suggest the presence of a workshop with skillful craftsmen producing an array of different objects. The quarries and possibly the workshop(s) of poros appear to be in the Mitata area in the central part of the island. This region is

close to the Mylopotamos area, and so the circulation of this material would have been easy, with objects mainly serving agricultural activities. At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and Kastri the choices regarding the materials used and the shapes of tools and vessels is different and more diverse than at Leska. The presence of imported materials from the Greek mainland and/or Crete can be clearly seen in cases of artifacts made from rosso antico, lapis lacedaimonius, serpentinite, steatite, alabaster, and perhaps some marble, possibly as early as the MM I–II phase (Huxley 1972, 218; Sakellarakis 1996, 83–84; Banou 2000, 384–385; Bevan 2007, 119, 128). At the Kastri settlement, serpentinite is the main material used, along with a few marble bowls and a tumbler (Coldstream 1972c, 205–206, 208, 210, 214–215, 218, figs. 59:δ60, ζ151, ζ152, ζ155, ν60, ν62, 60:ν61, ω346, ω348, pls. 61:π37, ω345, 62:ζ153, ν61, ν62, ω346, ω348). At the tombs from the same site, serpentinite and marble were the most popular materials, used in bowls, tumblers, lamps, a blossom bowl, and a miniature bird’s-nest bowl (Coldstream 1972c, 228, 233, 243, 259–261, 265–266, figs. 83:A4, 84:C39, 86:D77, O1, 94:L6– L16, pls. 83:L7–L17, 86:O1). At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, rosso antico, lapis lacedaimonius, steatite, limestone, serpentinite, alabaster, and marble have been found in the form of cups, lamps, ladles, libation tables, bird’s nest vases, and a figurine, while unworked raw pieces of rosso antico and lapis lacedaimonius have been found (Banou 2000, 384–388; 2003, 70; 2007, 286; 2012, 345–358; Bevan 2007, 128, fig. 6.19:f). Finally, a steatite ladle with a votive Linear A inscription is the most prominent find dedicated at this site (Sakellarakis and Olivier 1994, 345–349; Sakellarakis 1996, 83–84; Banou 2000, 387; 2007, 287). The only find made of local material used at this sanctuary is a limestone grinder, similar to ST3 from Leska. Although there is a larger relationship between the diversity of the small finds at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and the tombs at Kastri, at the latter site there is less diversity in the materials used. The sanctuary appears to attract more quantities of finds, and they represent a larger variety of forms and materials used. Nevertheless, the finds from the tombs and the settlement of Kastri and the peak sanctuary of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno share similar trends. The raw materials from

SMALL FINDS

Hagios Georgios sto Vouno supports the view that at least some of the material was imported raw and worked by local workshops. The role and position of Kastri as the main entry point of goods to the island was ideal for the presence of workshops there for the imported materials. At the same time, no such finds have been noted in contemporary sites by the survey beyond Kastri, and none of them reached Leska. Thus, it seems that besides the production of these stone objects in the Kastri area, their consumption remained localized. The excavation at Leska clarified the possible presence of at least three workshop areas producing stone objects on the island. The largest was centered in the Kastri area where imported material was brought and worked from Laconia, Melos, and other mainland regions and/or Crete. Most of these products were locally consumed, with the exception of obsidian tools that seem to have been circulated to Leska and most probably beyond. A second workshop appears to have existed at Mitata, working mainly on local poros, and its products circulated throughout its surrounding area, north to Leska and possibly other inland sites. A possible third workshop may have existed near Potamos and its marble sources, from which pieces may have circulated toward Leska as much as to the Kastri area. The working of the stone objects forms a framework in which a picture of the production and consumption of metals and bronze can be made. There is a general consensus that metals were imported to Kythera and that no such local resources were available (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007, 221). The presence of an area at Chalkos is not a convincing argument for the presence of copper on the island (Banou 2000, 389), but limited sources exploited already in prehistoric times cannot be disregarded altogether. The presence of chalcopyrite in the Malea peninsula would be the closest resource, but no positive contemporary evidence of its exploitation has been found. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that such a source remained unnoticed and unexploited during the Late Bronze Age. The hypothesis of a Laconian origin of the copper is the most likely scenario (Banou 2003, 71): the connection is strengthened by the import of raw rosso antico and lapis lacedaimonius. These stones as well as the resources of copper in the same region are

105

taken to be the main factors for Cretan interest in this wider area, and most importantly for Kythera acting as a stepping stone (Sakellarakis 1996, 90– 91; 2003, 32–33; Banou 2000, 389; 2007, 288–289). Wherever the metals came from, most, if not all were imported like the rest of the non-local stones and brought to the main port of the island at Kastri. The ingot fragments recovered near Hagios Georgios sto Vouno reveal the form in which they came to Kythera, as has been recorded at Kea (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007, 235). It is interesting to note that Kea is also close to copper resources like those at Siphnos and Lavrion. Furthermore, the survey conducted on Kythera has not provided any evidence of metal manufacture at any of the newly identified sites, while the discovery of grooved whetstones supports the presence of finished goods (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007, 235; Kiriatzi et al. 2012, 297). Metal items are absent among the remains collected from the Neopalatial sites during survey, with the exception of whetstones that could be associated with the use of metals (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007, 235; Georgakopoulou 2014, 79–80). The import of copper in the form of ingots and the production of bronze objects, especially the figurines, which appears to be locally restricted, emphasize the existence of a Kytherian bronze workshop (Broodbank, Rehren, and Zianni 2007, 235; Kiriatzi et al. 2012, 297; Varoufakis 2012, 246). Although it has not been identified yet, it would not be surprising for it to be found in the Kastri area, close to the port, as it has been hypothesized for the stone workshops. From this central site the bronze objects, imported and ready-made as well as locally produced, would circulate via inland routes to the hinterland, reaching Leska, and via the sea to the coastal sites along the eastern and southern seaboard. The import of bronze, its local manufacture, and its intra-island circulation would have been identical to that of the obsidian outlined above. In many respects, when bronze was used in the form of tools, metal objects served similar practical needs in some cases. Perhaps the older tradition of obsidian production and the exchange routes established already from the 3rd millennium b.c. were the basis on which the metals also were circulated. The new Neopalatial settlement pattern, however, would have formed a more complex

106

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

network in which these routes would have been renegotiated and expanded. The array of imported materials used for producing different types of objects, mainly stone and metal, at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno was presented briefly above (see this vol., pp. 100–101). Although their overall number is not very large, they consist of an important category of find within this peak sanctuary, almost exclusively consisting of luxury items. In contrast to this image, the presence of imported objects at Leska is rare, consisting only of four bronze items, a fragment of an obsidian blade, and a possible marble vessel. The raw material for the latter object was most probably local to the island, and the obsidian could be hardly characterized a luxury item. It becomes apparent that in whatever form, raw material or finished product, these foreign objects came to the main port of Kastri, they were not circulated in the internal areas of Kythera. When such items found their way into the Kytherian hinterland, they mainly were in small quantities and were related to metals and tools, like the obsidian blade.

The occurrence of two metal objects with similar characteristics possibly suggests a local symbolic meaning: the bronze bladelet and the helmet amulet clearly indicate a militaristic aspect in the items deposited at Leska; the obsidian blade also could be added tentatively to this group. Despite the fact that these finds were quantitatively limited, the employed materials, exotic and limited in numbers, enhance their meaning. The long exposure of bronze items on the surface of this site could also explain the dramatic decrease in their presence, since the removal of such valuable items in later times is a very likely scenario. These objects could have referred symbolically to a warrior aspect of the deity worshipped there and/or connected a male adulthood ceremony with the local divinity. Their presence at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno on Kythera, in some Cretan peak sanctuaries, and in other types of sanctuaries indicates that at least some of the deities venerated in these sanctuaries had associated militaristic symbolism.

5

The Palimpsest of Human Activities at Leska

The use of the summit of Leska can be divided into five broad periods with important hiatuses between: the Early Helladic period, the Minoan period, the Classical period, the post-Medieval phase, and the Modern era. The data from each phase are uneven, and in some cases it is difficult to convincingly ascertain the character of use at the highest point of this peak. The duration of the time gaps between these individual phases are in the magnitude of several centuries and at times up to a millennium or more. In the assessment of its use there is a rather important note that always should be considered: the landscape characteristics of this particular location. The summit of Leska is an unlikely location for habitation because of its exposed position and high altitude. There are powerful winds blowing from the east and west all year round, and clouds often cover the mountain top, limiting visibility and hindering movement. Additionally, lightening, which can seriously harm humans and animals, is common on the peak, and there is a lack of water sources, unlike in the plain ca. 1.00 km below the mountain.

Early Helladic The earliest use at Leska appears to have been during the EH I–II period, roughly between 3200 and 2300 b.c. The evidence is limited in quantity and consists exclusively of ceramic sherds from T.3. The character and fabric of these sherds show a mainland connection, not yet influenced by the Cretan pottery tradition. It should be noted that no Neolithic or Early Bronze Age remains have been noted at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Sakellarakis 1996, 87–88; Tournavitou 2000, 297–298). No structure of any type has been associated with these finds from Leska, and thus their interpretation remains uncertain. These factors in addition to the topographical issues related to this location make it an unlikely candidate for habitation (see this vol., pp. 2–4). Despite the small size of the EH I–II assemblage, it has serious implications for the understanding of this site, and two hypotheses can be put forward. The first is to take a practical view toward understanding how Leska was used. Its location on the

108

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

peak offers many advantages, primarily the visibility it provides over its surrounding landscape. Thus, its use could have been associated with animal herding, judging by the location of the finds southwest of the highest point of the summit. Here, visibility is mainly toward the mountainous landscape of Mt. Mermigkari where herds could have been left during summer months. Still, it is not clear why clay objects, which tend to be heavier than other materials, were brought along by people who were mobile in the landscape and at the same time close to their habitation area. The second hypothesis proposes the presence of a pre-Minoan cult. This interpretation would have consequences on the assessment of this cult during Minoan times and the degree to which older local elements affected its development and meaning. There has been much debate on the earlier appearance of the peak sanctuary cult. There may have been predecessors called hilltop sanctuaries, as discussed in Chapter 1 (see this vol., pp. 8–9). Nonetheless, the Kytherian pottery at the time was mainland Greek in character rather than Cretan, and it therefore would be difficult to claim Minoan religious influence at such an early time. On the Greek mainland at Mt. Kynortion in Epidauros, the EH I–II material seems to belong to a settlement and is not related to the later local Middle Helladic and Late Helladic cult (Lambrinudakis 1981, 62–62; Theodorou-Mavromatidi 2010, 529). The hypothesis that the Final Neolithic to EH I–II remains nearby historic sanctuaries in Attica had cultic character despite a long hiatus in use is not convincing (Ruppenstein 2011). Thus, a rather complicated image of Leska is formed, which suggests that there was earlier habitation in some sanctuaries of Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Age date located on mountain summits. It is important to realize that this phenomenon is not Cretan, however, but is more general, encompassing cases on Kythera and in mainland Greece. It becomes apparent that there is no clear picture in this regard, despite how tempting this idea may have been. The character of the finds in these locations also does not help, since no standardization or specialization appears to have been achieved in the forms or types of rituals performed in these early periods. In reality the problem is methodological in nature, because of an inability to identify

cult through the material culture of most 3rdmillennium b.c. and earlier contexts, with very few exceptions, including the earliest Cretan peak sanctuaries, Keros in the Cyclades, and the tholos tomb cemeteries in Central Crete (Branigan 1970; Broodbank 2000; Renfrew et al. 2007). At the same time, extrapolating the Minoan character of the site onto earlier phases is an anachronistic method that cannot be substantiated by the limited Early Helladic finds. Thus, it would be safest to interpret EH I–II Leska as an activity area possibly connected with pastoralism. Even if one follows the path of cultic use, the time gap would have lasted at least four centuries (EM III–MM IA), and any continuity would be difficult to propose. Nonetheless, this phase is a critical one, during the end of which Cretan cultural elements were introduced and spread across the island. Thus, the question still stands whether or not a local Early Bronze Age Kytherian religious substratum existed, survived, and influenced later practices and beliefs. If such a local substratum had existed, however, its character according to its material culture would have been closer to that of southern mainland Greece rather than Crete at that time.

Minoan Phase (MM IB–LM IB) After EH II, Leska was not used again until the Protopalatial period (MM IB–II) as Minoan cultural influence spread more throughout Kythera. The amount of pottery is limited, but it is similar in character to Neopalatial pottery as well as to contemporary pottery from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. Thus, it seems that the peak sanctuary was established in this period, concentrated at the northern part of the site, including the exposed bedrock that may have acted as a baetyl, or a stone/medium from which an epiphany (i.e., communication with a deity) was achieved. This bedrock could have been acted as a center for rituals, similar to the way the fissure at the peak sanctuary of Juktas is proposed to have been used (Karetsou 1976, 417; 1978, 251; 1981, 141; Rutkowski 1991, 13, 20).

T H E PA L I M P S E S T O F H U M A N A C T I V I T I E S AT L E S K A

In the Neopalatial period (MM III–LM IB), the sanctuary space was expanded toward the south and west of the original area. More finds in quantity and diversity were deposited, which allow for the reconstruction of the rituals that were taking place at Leska at this time. Its end of use appears to coincide with the end of the LM IB phase.

Classical Period The hiatus between the Neopalatial and the Classical period is long. Nevertheless, finds of the Classical period, specifically the 5th and 4th centuries b.c, have been recovered on the summit. They consist of the second largest assemblage of finds recovered at Leska, including mainly tiles and sherds but also lamp(s) and perhaps glass. The majority of the finds are attested 20.00 m north of the highest point of the summit, a different location altogether than that of the Early Helladic remains, as the survey has shown. This concentration of finds on the summit is in a flat area somewhat protected from the powerful eastern winds. It offers views toward the sea to the north and the mountainous landscape of Mt. Mermigkari to the west and south, while to the east parts of exposed bedrock are visible. Far fewer Classical remains have been recovered from the upper strata of the excavation in the northern part of the peak sanctuary, specifically in T.1 (three sherds), T.3 (one sherd), and Cairn 2 (five sherds and one portion of a tile; Pl. 17). This pottery is exclusively of fine quality, including Black-Glazed drinking cups. During the Classical phase at Leska is the first evidence of a structure erected on the summit, as revealed by the presence of tiles. On some the black glaze is still preserved, despite their long exposure to the elements. Nevertheless, assessing the character of this site as a habitation/activity or cult area is still up for debate. The location of the site on a high summit provided limited opportunities for habitation. It seems that irrespective of its size, a substantial structure existed, which supported a strong superstructure with tiles, hardly necessary for a herder’s hut or a seasonal adobe on top of a mountain. Unfortunately, the lack of excavation on this

109

part of the summit cannot provide further information about the exact location of the structure, the material used, and or its size. The fact that some, if not all of the tiles were glazed suggests that there was an effort toward elaboration or at least that more expensive material was used for its construction. These aspects would apply more to a shrine than a habitation building, especially in an extrasettlement location in a region far from the main urban center of the island. The character of the rest of the finds support this interpretation, with fine drinking cups, lamp(s), and the glass object having been presented as offerings. These finds would make no sense within a habitation area, since containers, cooking vessels, and coarse utilitarian pottery are missing. Although there is a long gap in time between the Minoan peak sanctuary and the Classical finds at Leska, the structure of the latter phase appears also to belong to a sanctuary. The decision to erect a shrine on Leska seems strange considering it is the second highest summit after Mermigkari. In that respect, it is apparent either that the memory of its religious character remained or that the Minoan remains were clear enough for the locals to assume the existence of an earlier sacred site. In that respect, it can be proposed that there was a revival of cult at Leska, in the sense that the same peak was chosen for ritual activities, but not exactly the same locale. The remains of the Minoan sanctuary would have been more visible at that time, certainly more so than today, but no structure was erected over them, for either respect or more practical reasons, such as an area with less wind. This assertion could explain the limited Classical finds on this part of the summit and at least partly why the northern location was chosen for the later shrine. This cultic revival may not have been a solitary phenomenon on Kythera, because at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno post-Minoan use during the late Classical and Hellenistic periods has been noted (Sakellarakis 1996, 88; 2011, 335; Tournavitou 2000, 297–298; Alexandropoulou 2013, 9–10). No tiles from this period have been reported, however, and the character of the site at this time is unspecified, but a non-ritual function has been proposed (Alexandropoulou 2013, 9–10). Assessing the revival of ritual at Leska is equally problematic due

110

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

to the complicated chronological context during which this process takes place. From 546 b.c. onward, Kythera most probably was incorporated into the Spartan state. It already has been observed that the Spartans introduced new deities of Doric origin on the island, such as Alea, Dioskouroi, Aiglapios-Asklepios, Poseidon Gaiochos, Heracles, and possibly Apollo Karneios (Tsaravopoulos 2009, 568–570). This practice is believed to have been deliberate, aiming to counterbalance the importance of the local cult of Aphrodite (Paus. 3.22.1, 3.23.1). Thus, it is difficult to propose whether the revival seen at sites previously with Minoan peak sanctuaries was part of this process, or if it was a type of resistance that relied on ancient holy places in more marginal areas. So far the Classical to Roman sanctuaries on Kythera were located in lowlands and not on mountain summits. The only exception is the sanctuary of a female deity on the highest peak of the Palaiokastro hill, which had a temple probably as early as the late Middle Geometric or early Late Geometric period (late 9th or early 8th century b.c.; Petrocheilos 2003, 79; 2004, 454). Perhaps the lack of a cult of Zeus in the lowland parts of the island was due to his veneration on mountain peaks, as in numerous contemporary regions in Greece (Gaifman 2012, 306). After a hiatus in their use as sanctuaries, a revival in peak sanctuaries in Crete is attested at Pyrgos during the 4th and 3rd centuries b.c. and Kophinas in the Late Hellenistic period (Karetsou and Rethemiotakis 1991–1993, 289–290; Kyriakidis 2011, 420–423). A non-cultic reuse has been proposed for Vrysinas, however, lasting from the Protogeometric period until the Hellenistic period with some gaps, as well as later during late Antiquity and the Middle Byzantine period (Tzachili 2016, 144–150). Thus, in some cases cultic reuse can be traced outside Kythera, suggesting that this phenomenon was broader, albeit at a limited number of sites. It remains unclear whether there was any memory of an older cult practiced at the summit of Leska. On one hand the hiatus between Minoan and Classical is very long, but on the other, the choice of a nearby area very close to the highest part of the summit was not accidental. Respect for the older sanctuary space and visible material remains of past ritual activities seems to have existed.

Despite the fact that I am inclined to accept the veneration of Zeus in classical times, this view does not necessarily mean a continuation of older beliefs. Choosing the same location again indicates special meaning attributed to the position of the site in the landscape, and the views it offered would have been used in a similar way in the new cult. Perhaps there was a memory or local myth associating this specific mountain with some (sky?) deity that led to some kind of revival. The author would prefer, however, to see the Classical sanctuary as a reinvention of cult practices that took place within the cultural framework of the 5th century b.c., rather than continuity. The most important aspect of the Classical shrine at Leska is that it was erected to serve the needs of the locals during that time, which would have been a combination of religious, ideological, political, social, and economic, and also considerably different from those of the Minoan period.

Post-Medieval Phase The remains from this period are rather limited and consist exclusively of pottery sherds. They seem to belong to the Venetian period on the island, possibly the 16th century a.d. Similar sherds have been noted at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and are dated in the late Venetian period (Tzavella 2013, 288). All the finds at Leska are concentrated on the western upper part of the slope, ca. 15.00 meters southwest of the highest point. They consist of sherds belonging to containers and everyday vessels. The location in which they were found offers protection from powerful eastern winds, but no structural remains have been noted. Nonetheless, the types of finds would argue for a habitation area, possibly of seasonal character due to the weather conditions on the mountain summit, appropriate for herders and/ or farmers. Not far below on the lower slopes, stone enclosures suggest the traditional seasonal use of the landscape for crops and herds. The occupation on the Leska summit during this phase appears to be of a limited extent and short time.

T H E PA L I M P S E S T O F H U M A N A C T I V I T I E S AT L E S K A

Modern Period The modern remains at Leska are equally as limited as the post-Medieval, but they clearly suggest the use of the summit in more recent times. The stone enclosures described above were used until relatively recently, the 1950s and 1960s, for the same practices. Around the summit of the mountain and in the northern lower and the southern upper slopes, limekilns were active for some time serving the settlements in the Mylopotamos area. Furthermore, some kind of land management was taking place on the summit of Leska, because two roughly circular, possibly modern cairns were found and excavated. Cairn 1 yielded no evidence at all, but for the construction of Cairn 2, Classical glazed tiles were employed. A third cairn also was noted on the exposed bedrock east of the main concentration of Classical finds. The disuse of the land from the 1970s onward left wild thorny bushes to grow, which were damaged by an accidental fire in 2003. The modern finds include two standard-type hunting cartridges from T.1 and T.4, and part of the rim of a small, closed glass container from T.3. These remains were recovered on the highest point of the summit, a location that provides the best visibility. The hunting at this location is ideal for birds, especially during their migration in early spring (mainly April mainly) and early autumn (September to October). The cartridges belong to the late 20th and early 21st centuries a.d., while the glass container could have been holding water for hunters in the 20th century a.d. The practice of hunting birds on the Leska summit was confirmed to the author by some local hunters. Perhaps the archaeological survey and excavation of 2011 also should be added to the short-term activities that took place on the summit.

Discussion The summit of Leska has been exploited by humans in various ways for the last five millennia. Despite the harsh weather conditions that frequently affected this location, it did not deter its use through the ages. There is no continuity in its occupation but

111

rather short periods followed by long hiatuses. This is due to topographical characteristics, the location on the top of the mountain and a lack of water, and environmental conditions. This point is emphasized by the common element shared by all phases of occupation: its use was only seasonal and/or periodical in character. This element applies to all types of exploitation at this site, including habitation, religious sanctuary, and hunting ground. Although the character of the Early Helladic occupation remains elusive, during antiquity Leska peak was seen as a cultic site. The same tendency can also be seen in the case of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. Nevertheless, after the introduction of Christianity this trend did not continue at Leska with a Byzantine or post-Byzantine chapel. This comes in contrast to practices at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno where two chapels were erected, Hagios Georgios and Panagia Myrtidiotissa, and at Palaiokastro with two more chapels, Hagios Georgios tou Vounou and Hagioi Kosmas and Damianos; the latter was located a few hundred meters from the ancient sanctuary (Coldstream and Huxley, eds., 1972; Petrocheilos 1984; Sakellarakis 2011). This circumstance is somewhat strange considering that other prominent mountain summits on Kythera were used for chapels, such as Hagia Elessa and Hagia Moni. At the same time there were significant medieval settlements in the Mylopotamos plain, and the Katafygadi cave was used as a refuge site in case of piratical raids. All these points suggest that the lack of a chapel at Leska is strange and unexpected. The diachronic diversity in the use of Leska should not come as a surprise, because it served people in quite different cultural, political, social, and economic conditions. Despite the relatively remote character of the summit, there is a clear palimpsest of human activities taking place at this location.

Why is Leska a Peak Sanctuary? Leska has been used in different phases from the prehistoric times until today, but the vast majority of the finds belong to the Minoan period. This out-of-the-ordinary concentration of finds and the

112

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

character of its use during this phase needs to be interpreted. A number of hypotheses could be proposed regarding the remains on the summit of Leska and the actual character of this particular site. I will demonstrate why this particular site could not have been used as a seasonal habitation area, a region for animal keeping or as a military outpost and it was in fact a peak sanctuary. Thus, I will employ and analyze the topographic elements and the material culture from Leska in order to determine the ways this site was used during the Minoan period.

Topographic Concerns In the previous section, it has been pointed out emphatically that the Leska summit was rather problematic as a habitation area, even one of seasonal character. Mount Mermigkari is a mountainous limestone environment, currently with no trees, no water resources, poor arable land with limited soil only at the lower, gentler slopes of the mountain, and a great deal of exposed bedrock. Perhaps the most deterring element is harsh weather conditions, particularly during the cold months of the year. Furthermore, the strong winds can cause significant variations in temperature that are harmful for the vegetation, especially trees (Rutkowski 1986, 74). Clouds, thunder, and high elevations make peaks like Leska the least favorite and most dangerous locations for habitation and animal keeping, even seasonal. With its low vegetation, this landscape offers more opportunities as pastoral land, especially during the hotter months. Thus, it comes as no real surprise that no structure was recovered during the excavation on the Leska summit. The same applies to attempts at artificial terracing, possibly for two reasons: (1) the site was not used for cultivation, and (2) the summit at Leska was relatively flat anyway. Despite the lack of any structure, a large concentration of finds was recovered, as has been demonstrated, in a relatively small area measuring ca. 260.00 m². This circumstance suggests intense use for a period of time that spanned from the Protopalatial phase (MM IB–II) until the end of the Neopalatial period (MM III–LM IB). Apart from the disadvantages this locale offers for even seasonal habitation or animal keeping, it

has the advantage of being in a strategic location. The lack of any structure would hardly make it appropriate for a military outpost, and in the Lasithi area of eastern Crete, the presence of a fortified structure was the main characteristic of such sites, which were located next to a road, usually in plateaus or low slopes, and erected by local political authorities (Tzedakis et al. 1989, 1990). None of these three elements—the presence of a fortified structure, a nearby road, and evidence of an active political authority—apply to the case of Leska. Furthermore, there are serious reservations about the identification of these structures in East Crete as military outposts, and an agropastoral use has been proposed for them in more recent and thorough studies (Reid 2007, 70–82; Beckmann 2014b, 24). These facts weaken such a proposal, but still it could be claimed that Leska was used only for overseeing the area, without the presence of a building or other structure. There are several problems with this hypothesis, however, and the first and foremost is the area that Leska commands. The sea is mainly located to the northwest where no real anchorage is available to face a threat, and also to the south where it is far away. The only location that could have been used for ships is the natural port of Limnionas, situated northwest of Mylopotamos, which is not visible at all from the peak of Leska but can be seen from the top of Katafygadi. Leska also has a view over the southern and northern plateaus, but there is no evidence of any internal threat in this period. Moreover, during the Neopalatial period the dispersed settlement pattern that existed in the hinterland of Kythera consisted of one or two farmsteads. In other words the social, political, and economic conditions in this part of the island would not allow the luxury of a military outpost, especially in a period and area of such low risk. The presence of military posts is seriously questioned for eastern Crete, and no similar claim has been proposed for any site on Minoan Kythera. The same applies even in the eastern coastal part of the island, as the KIP survey has demonstrated, which is topographically the most vulnerable area and where a large portion of the population was concentrated. In fact, so far no military or fortified installations of the Minoan period have been recognized anywhere on Kythera. Even Hagios Georgios sto Vouno is thought to have been

T H E PA L I M P S E S T O F H U M A N A C T I V I T I E S AT L E S K A

an important landmark for sea travelling, having a strategic location, but no military role has been attributed to it (Sakellarakis 2011, 11–14). All the topographic characteristics in addition to the seasonal use of Leska conform best, if not perfectly, to the presence of a peak sanctuary, which would find a parallel at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno in the eastern part of the island. In fact, the dispersed Protopalatial and Neopalatial settlement pattern of inland Kythera would have been very similar to that of Protopalatial Crete. In the latter region, this situation promoted the appearance and flourishing of peak sanctuaries across the mountainous Cretan landscapes, serving and unifying scattered communities. The same role could be proposed for the peak sanctuary at Leska, in an analogous settlement pattern but in a Protopalatial and Neopalatial date in western Kythera.

Material Culture The numerous finds present at a seasonal site would come as a surprise if Leska were not used as a peak sanctuary. A predominance of open vases over closed in such an arid environment is highly problematic, and the predominance of drinking vessels is also not compatible with well-documented habitation assemblages from contemporary Cretan sites. Interestingly enough, among the cups and apart from the simpler conical shapes, other more elaborate forms were popular, such as the straight sided and the hemispherical. The presence of a large number of cooking vessels in relation to the lack of evidence for fire and the fact that almost no animal bones have been recovered are strange occurrences. The people mainly using this location would have been pastoralists, and meat regularly would have been consumed by them with the help of open fires while away from their homes. The evidence regarding food consumption, however, suggests a different pattern, with a preference for ready-made food consisting of agricultural produce brought to the summit. Closed vessels, mainly jugs, some jars, and rarely pithoi, have been recovered at this site, consisting collectively of only ca. 15.00% of the pottery assemblage. It seems that the storage of water and agricultural/pastoral produce was a very low

113

priority, an unlikely scenario for a habitation site even of a seasonal character. The quality of the fine ware is also surprising for a seasonal site on top of the mountain. It does not fit the picture of pastoralists or even of a military outpost for overlooking and protecting the wider Mylopotamos area. This applies to all drinking and eating vessels (i.e. cups and bowls), while display vessels such as bowls, basins, and kalathoi also have been found. A number of jugs were also miniature, while others were made out of fine wares. Specialized pottery shapes in fine clay have also been recovered, such as rhyta and ring-handled basins. The former are very often found in ritual contexts and the latter, along with kalathoi, are primarily attested in Kytheran chamber tombs. Both shapes would be unlikely finds at a seasonal habitation site or military outpost, strongly suggesting a special character for this site, one of ritual character. The small finds also need to be understood within these proposed contexts. Due to their character and low quality, most of the stone tools and vessels would have belonged at a seasonal habitation site, an animal keeping area, a military outpost, or as offerings to a peak sanctuary. The presence of a poros conical cup, however, would not be easily explained, while the presence of a marble libation table would make no sense in any of these contexts but the cultic. Furthermore, the presence of a clay animal figurine, the clay horns of consecration, and the clay balls would be appropriate in a site with a cultic character. In fact, the combination of these three types of find is recovered only in peak sanctuaries and definitely not at seasonal habitation or military sites. The fabric of most of these clay finds belongs to the sources, and most probably also the workshops close to Kastri, suggesting that they were moved far into the Kytheran hinterland in order to be deposited at Leska. Small river pebbles and pieces of unworked chert were also brought from elsewhere to the summit of the mountain. Pebbles are well known objects deposited in peak sanctuaries in Crete and at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno on Kythera (Nowicki 2019; Banou 2012), but their exact use remains elusive and/or particular to each case. The unworked character of the chert pieces and their low quality argue against the local manufacture of stone tools,

114

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

and these objects find parallels in at least one more peak sanctuary in Crete, Traostalos (Chryssoulaki 2001). Additionally, the few bronze objects recovered are thought to be votives in a cultic context rather than objects of everyday practical use. The volume, types, quality, and use of the pottery vessels demonstrate that there were specific consumption patterns at Leska, which are quite different from those expected at the aforementioned site types. This circumstance also can be confirmed and emphasized by the small finds, which can be understood best as votives. In fact, all the small finds find close parallels in the objects recovered on peak sanctuaries either in Crete or elsewhere

on Kythera. The unique assemblage of pottery and small finds emphasize that there were strong ritual elements at this site. The inhospitable location of the Leska summit, the lack of any human intervention in the form of a structure, as well as the character of the objects deposited, both of pottery and small finds, cannot support seasonal, everyday use. The intensity of visitation and the emphasis on specific activities, as the finds from this site suggest, in relation to the landscape of the summit demonstrate the cultic character of the site. All these elements argue that on Leska a peak sanctuary was active during the Minoan period.

6

Landscape Analysis

In this chapter, it will be stressed that the landscape in which Leska is situated played a significant role not only regarding the site’s precise location, environment, and visibility, but also, more importantly, in local practices and beliefs. Thus, the analysis of the landscape will enable a broader understanding of this sanctuary and its role in a wider Kytheran context. The ideas and hypotheses presented in this section are speculative in nature, aiming to address and propose new questions and interpretations regarding the symbolic significance of this sacred site.

Weather It already has been mentioned that Mt. Mermigkari is located at the west end of the island, and it forms the largest and highest mountain mass on Kythera, with three peaks close to 500.00 m asl. Hence low clouds, mainly coming from the open sea but also

from the southern Peloponnese, would nest over and cover the peaks of Mt. Mermigkari more regularly than any other part of the island. That would have made this mountain, especially its visible peaks, Mermigkari and Leska, a barometer for the weather conditions on the island and a reference point for farmers, animal herders, and sailors, especially those sailing on the west side of the island. In the semi-arid Mediterranean climate, drought often occurs every few years, mainly in the form of decreased precipitation than normally expected for one or more years. This phenomenon is believed to have existed in the 2nd millennium b.c., although it was perhaps less conspicuous, because the available palaeoenvironmental data suggest less evaporative summers during the Protopalatial period until the eruption of the Thera volcano, with less frequent periods of drought (Moody 2009, 247, 249). The measures taken during the Neopalatial period and especially the LM IA–IB phases in Crete, with the constructions of dams in perennial streams and the digging of wells, are believed to have addressed

116

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

drought problems and enabled better local water management, perhaps as a response to more arid summer conditions (Platon 1971; Watrous et al. 1993; Soles 2003; Betancourt 2005; 2012; MacGillivray, Sackett, and Driessen 2007).

Mount Mermigkari The geology of Mt. Mermigkari consists of limestone and dolomite, which indicates that even in the Minoan period the area was mountainous with low vegetation, possibly with only low or no tree coverage (Ill. 2; Pl. 1A). Nevertheless, this region remained a rich locale for farming, particularly in the Neopalatial phase, as sites found on its lower slopes suggest. The region of Mt. Mermigkari was ideal for pastoral purposes as well, offering a large area in which animals could find fodder, a hunting area (especially for birds), a source of wild greens, herbs, and flowers (like crocus), and an ideal area for apiculture. This mountain was not only a rich resource and/ or a place for habitation, however, but was also a location with a sacred character. The case of the Lazarianika pithos burial is of a primary interest for understanding Mermigkari (Ill. 2) for two main reasons: (1) the date of the grave, and (2) the type and practices observed in this burial. Petrocheilos studied the material from the burial and dated it to the MM III phase (1984, 64). Preston prefers an earlier date in MM II in accordance with the Cretan tradition of pithos burials replaced by Neopalatial chamber tombs (2007, 249). The other examples Preston uses from Kastri belong to the wider Middle Minoan phase (Huxley, Trik, and Coldstream 1972, 227), but she does mention they could have been earlier than that or even contemporary with the chamber tombs at that site (Preston 2007). Thus, although the pattern of Protopalatial pithos burials and Neopalatial chamber tombs is appealing, the data seem to be far more complicated. Accompanying the Lazarianika pithos was a bird’s nest vessel, dated by Coldstream (1972a, 182, fig. 55:ω43; 1972b, 286; 1972c, 233, 243 figs. 84:C39, 86:D77) in the MM III(B)–LM IA phase based on stone and clay versions from Kastri. Thus, it seems that an early

date in ΜΜ ΙΙ date cannot be supported by the contextual evidence of the grave. An MM III date for the Lazarianika pithos would propose the possible continuation of an older funerary tradition in this part of the island, parallel to the introduction of the chamber tombs at Kastri. In the nearby mainland region of Laconia, Middle Helladic pithos burials of children and infants have been noted at Amyklaion, Hagios Stefanos (MH and LH II) and possibly also Belmina (Watehouse and Hope Simpson 1960, 75–75, fig. 3; 1961, 125; Janko 2008, 142, 144; Taylour and Janko 2008, 122–124, 135). Parallels of pithos burials have also been recovered at early Middle Cycladic and LC I Hagia Eirene on Kea and Middle Cycladic and LC I Skarkos on Ios, all belonging to burials of infants and children; at LB I Trianda on Rhodes, both children and adults have been found (Overbeck 1984, 114–116; 1989; Marketou 1988, 615–617; Marthari 2009, 46–50, 53–54). On Crete, pithos burials have been attested at EM III–MM III Hagios Georgios (possible), MM II Sissi, the MM IB–IIIA Pithos cave at Zakros, EM III–LM I Pacheia Ammos, the MM IIIB– LM IA West Terrace cemetery at Mochlos (used for infants and children), Neopalatial Gra Lygia, Neopalatial Gournia, and Neopalatial Knossos (Mavro Spelio and Temple Tomb area; Preston 2007, 241; Vavouranakis 2007, 22, 28, 39, 42–43, 46, tables 3, 7; Driessen 2012, 83, fig. 2). Most of the Aegean island and Cretan examples support the later date proposed by Petrocheilos and argue for the continuity of this burial type from EB II–LB I on some of the islands and in the broader Aegean (Georgiadis 2003, 34–35; Marthari 2009, 41, 43, 54). Thus, it can be more forcefully proposed that there was a second type of Neopalatial burial practice operating on Kythera whose longevity remains unclear with the current data. Preliminary reports from small caves/cave shelters on Mount Mermigkari report the presence of pithos remains (K. Trimmis, pers. comm., 11 May 2011). A Neopalatial stone vessel has been found on the eastern slopes, which most probably belonged to one of these tombs (Tsaravopoulos 2012, 23). These naturally formed rock shelters may have been used as pithos burial sites for individuals from settlements in the surrounding area of the mountain and the Mylopotamos plateau. A Neopalatial parallel is known from a rock shelter

L A N D S C A P E A N A LY S I S

in eastern Crete at Hagios Athanasios close to Zou, and more may exist in the Ziros area (Vavouranakis 2007, 50). Nonetheless, the Mt. Mermigkari examples do not appear to emulate Cretan prototypes but are rather a local expression of the symbolic importance attributed to the mountainous landscape of Mermigkari. The concentration of burials in the bedrock makes them and the dead they contained part of the sacred landscape, bringing them closer to locally venerated deities. The sites Merm.2, Merm.3, and Merm.5, identified during fieldwalking (Ill. 2), provided sherds with Red Micaceous fabric, strongly suggesting a Neopalatial date. Site Merm.1 is probably contemporary, but a slightly earlier date cannot be dismissed altogether due to the presence of Mudstone fabric sherds. The character of these sites remains in question, but the presence of Red Micaceous sherds and a handle from a cooking vessel in Merm.3 argues for their use as habitation areas. These possibly are individual farmsteads on the slopes of Mt. Mermigkari, the inhabitants of which exploited the immediate mountainous environment for pastoral reasons and equally parts of the Mylopotamos plateau for cultivation. The same could be proposed for the site identified in the Mylopotamos plateau, but its size could have been somewhat larger, which would fit well with the results from KIP and APKAS (Broodbank, Kiriatzi, and Rutter 2005, 87; Paspalas and Gregory 2009, 554–555, fig. 3). They are another strong indication of the colonization of the landscape across Kythera that took place during the Neopalatial period.

Katafygadi Cave The Katafygadi Cave is also a very important site for the current discussion and for the understanding of this region (Ill. 2; Pl. 2A). The location of this site, the relatively flat summit of the mountain with a great deal of exposed limestone bedrock, and its almost vertical, small entrance makes this site almost hidden from view. Its distance from Leska is only ca. 400.00 m, but its entrance is not visible from the peak sanctuary. Nevertheless, from the entrance of the cave looking northeast, the top of Leska is visible in the foreground and,

117

equally importantly, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno can be seen clearly in the background, on the gap that is formed between the summits of the Leska and Mermigkari peaks. Looking west through this gap, a small part of the Katafygadi peak also can be seen from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. Cave sites have a strong liminal character, being both inside and outside the mountain at the same time, as well as both below and above ground, and they are often attributed with evil, chthonic, or demonic qualities (Haaland and Haaland 2011, 27– 28). Caves in some cases are a metaphor for the female body, and fertility becomes an important aspect in associated rituals (Haaland and Haaland 2011, 28–29, 31). On Crete they were often employed as burial grounds, but they became drastically limited during the Neopalatial period (Tyree 2001, 40; 2006, 331; Vavouranakis 2007, 26–28, 35, 38–40, 47, 49–50, tables 3, 5, 7). Earlier reports on Minoan and Mycenaean use of the Katafygadi Cave and the presence of animal and human bones are significant but vague regarding the exact character of the site (Leonhard 1899, 15; Petrocheilos 1984, 63–64; Bartsiokas 1998, 33, figs. 70–71). Recent preliminary reports on the excavation conducted in 2011 indicate the presence of two strata, an upper Mycenaean stratum and a lower Minoan, exclusively Neopalatial in date (LM IB), where the human bones were recovered (Trandalidou 2013, 492 n. 118; Trandalidou et al. 2013– 2015, 83). The presence of human bones within a cave used during the Neopalatial phase as part of secondary burial treatment is enough on its own to indicate that its use was not restricted to everyday pastoral practices but rather to something including ritual elements (Trandalidou et al. 2013–2015, 85, 97). The hypotheses for understanding such a practice can be twofold: it either was used as a burial ground or functioned as a sacred cave, as proposed by Aris Tsaravopoulos (2009, 564). In either case, the Katafygadi Cave had a ritual/sacred character with chthonic elements that fit well with the rest of the activities already identified on Mt. Mermigkari. A cultic function has also been proposed for the Hagia Sofia cave in the southern part of Kythera due to the presence of LM I remains (Benton 1931– 1932, 245; Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 151; Coldstream and Huxley 1984, 108; Trandalidou et al. 2013–2015, 67, fig. 3), but more thorough

118

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

research at this site could elucidate its character and use during the Neopalatial phase. Although the Katafygadi Cave may not have been a unique case on Kythera regarding its symbolic role, current studies cannot support this claim with convincing data due to lack of research.

A Sacred Landscape in West Kythera As discussed earlier, Mt. Mermigkari is the largest and highest mountain on Kythera. A number of archaeological sites have been noted in its wider area, but some appear to have a special character, forming a distinct sacred landscape. Three such sites have been identified thus far, Leska, the Katafygadi Cave, and Lazarianika, all with different settings (Ill. 2). It is of particular interest that these sites are located on three different peaks of the same mountain. Furthermore, in all three cases the natural limestone bedrock is the main focus in differing ways, and thus diverse rituals must have taken place. The reference of Late Bronze Age finds in the caves of Lachno and Stavrou on the western lower slopes of Mt. Mermigkari may be related to the other burials and/or sacred sites of this mountainous area, but their actual date and character are unclear (Trandalidou et al. 2013–2015, 67, fig. 3). The Lazarianika cemetery is located on the southwestern slopes of the Mermigkari peak, and it may have functioned as a claim of the associated community’s ownership over the pastoral and other resources of the mountain. The same may have been the case for the small caves and cave shelters, if their interpretation as burial sites is correct. These sites could have belonged to other settlements east of the Mermigkari summit, such as Merm.1–Merm.3, or even to others in the wider Mylopotamos region. At the site close to Lazarianika, the slope was dug into to bury the deceased within a pithos, the deceased then becoming part of the bedrock of the mountain. A claim to the landscape may have been expressed through the burial, which acted as evidence of inheritance and continuity. The dead members of the settlement have been incorporated into the landscape, becoming part of it and possibly attaining the status of ancestor. Views of lowland areas from

these sites could suggest apotropaic and/or fertility attributes in the powers of the ancestors over the cultivated land. The use of naturally formed small caves and rock shelters could have had the same attributes and stood as single and/or simple versions of a more collective, larger cave. The Katafygadi Cave is situated on the lowest and gentlest peak of the three on Mt Mermigkari. Although its exact character is not yet clear, there is a chthonic aspect to the ritual activities that were taking place there. The difficulty in finding the site, its small and narrow entrance, and the limited light entering the main chamber could have been desirable elements involved in the beliefs associated, were a divinity worshipped in the cave. Its invisibility from Leska or even from closer distances may have been important for its mystic character, especially when compared to most caves on the island. In the case of Katafygadi, the limestone bedrock naturally formed its underground space, where speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) existed. Light and darkness, visibility and invisibility, and life and death must have played a role in the beliefs and practices associated with this cave and its possible divinity(-ies). Leska is located on a relatively flat terrace on the highest point of the peak of the same name, where natural bedrock is exposed in many places (Pl. 1B). It commands great views in all directions, extending beyond the landmass of the island. Its open-air character and dominant position on the highest end of the peak add to its importance as a liminal space between earth and sky. A large part of the bedrock is exposed on the highest point of the summit, bearing a crack that must have been a focal point in this sanctuary. Hence, it is very possible that the deity(ies) worshipped at this site were associated in some way with the sky. Here it is proposed that there was a significant sacred landscape on Mt. Mermigkari, in which its three peaks possessed different religious aspects. In brief, the Mermigkari peak is associated with an ancestral landscape, the Katafygadi Cave peak with a chthonic landscape, and the Leska peak with the sky, the sun, and a commanding view over the landscape of Kythera and beyond. Interestingly, there is no intervisibility between the three sites, as noted earlier. In all three sites, rituals were performed, and each site is closely related to the bedrock of the mountain. Furthermore, the lack of human intervention at these sacred sites is another important

L A N D S C A P E A N A LY S I S

common element: nature formed the local topography and no alteration had taken place. This observation could explain the lack of fires on Leska: perhaps they were taboo and worshippers were not allowed to light them within the notional precincts of the sanctuary. Still, nature and its elements, such as exposed bedrock and speleothems, were symbolically charged with different beliefs and possibly associated with different types of rituals. They were considered focal points, however, turning these places into symbolically charged nexuses around which people gathered, performing meaningful ritual acts within the belief systems they developed in this region. The local inhabitants seem to have mythologized their mountainous landscape similarly to how they colonized it progressively from the Protopalatial to Neopalatial period. There also may have been a religious antithesis between the Katafygadi Cave and Leska sanctuary, expressed in their landscape settings and possibly in the characters of their cults: dark vs. light, closed vs. open, chthonic vs. sky, hollow vs. protruding, and possibly female vs. male. This antithesis is well attested in the deities worshiped in contemporary Mesopotamia, and slightly later among the Hittites and in Ugarit as well as in later Greek religion (Burkert 1996, 201–203). Perhaps a chthonic Potnia was worshipped at the cave and an early version of Zeus at the peak sanctuary. This hypothesis cannot exclude the veneration of additional deities at these sanctuaries, possibly of lesser importance. This antithesis is an inextricable part of the natural cycle of life, death and regeneration, however, which could have been symbolized in the relationship between the cults practiced at the Katafygadi Cave and Leska. One additional important note is the fact that Mt. Mermigkari was not reserved exclusively for cultic and funerary practices. As discussed previously, on the slopes of the mountain a more complex “taskscape” existed, including small settlements (see this vol., pp. 4, 117). Furthermore, other activities can be envisaged, such as the cultivation of the fertile lower slopes, especially to the east, and animal management all around the mountain. Mermigkari was a mountain where the sacred and profane coexisted, and where the living and the dead interacted in a practical and symbolic way. The lack of spatial demarcation of the peak sanctuary, the Katafygadi Cave, and the burial sites emphasize this suggestion.

119

The complex sacred landscape on Mt. Mermigkari is unparalleled elsewhere on Kythera, and thus it is necessary to seek parallels on contemporary Crete. Such a task is difficult if we consider that extra-settlement sanctuaries, and peak sanctuaries in particular, are not well studied, not to mention their wider environs. Nevertheless, there are a few examples such as on Mt. Kophinas, on the lower slopes of which a shrine was located at Metzolati, in addition to a peak sanctuary on its summit (Nowicki 2007a, 577; Soetens 2009, 266). There is a clear association between the two contemporary sacred sites, connected by a route leading from the lowland areas to the summit of Kophinas. Another such example can be seen at Traostalos, where a Protopalatial ritual site was identified at Kalyvomouri bothros in the Gorge of the Dead at the southwest end of the mountain slopes (Vavouranakis 2007, 38, 40, fig. 2.31, table 6). A similar relationship could be proposed between the late Prepalatial ossuary at Patema (Building V) and the contemporary early phase of Petsophas (Bosanquet et al. 1902–1903, 350–355). On a broader scale, the peak sanctuaries at Gournos, Keria, and Voskero, as well as three unexplored caves with contemporary finds that may have had a sacred character, are thought to be related to a sacred path from Central Crete through Zominthos to the Idaean Cave (Sakellarakis and Panagiotopoulos 2006, 68; Siart and Eitel 2008, 300–301; Siart, Eitel, and Panagiotopoulos 2008, 2919, 2925; Rethemiotakis 2009, 189). Through this route, pilgrims could have visited and practiced rituals at the different sacred sites en route to the Idaean Cave. A better known and more easily understood parallel is the case of Juktas, however. The coexistence of the Phourni Cemetery on the slopes of the mountain, two shrines, Anemospelia and Alonaki, on the lower slopes, a peak sanctuary on its top, the Chousti Cave, perhaps an additional sacred cave, and possibly a sanctuary based around a spring form a rather complex and compact sacred landscape (Karetsou 1981, 137–138; 2013, 90; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1994, 66–67, 136–137; Watrous 1996, 97; Peatfield 2007, 298; Soar 2009, 96; Soetens 2009, 266; Karetsou and Mathioudaki 2012, 103). A close association between the earliest phase of this peak sanctuary, EM II, with the use of the contemporary Early Minoan cemetery at Phourni has been put forth with an emphasis on ancestor worship (Peatfield

120

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

2013, 477). Interestingly enough, on Juktas we find the only coexistence of a peak sanctuary and sacred cave in Crete. The example of Juktas is possibly more complicated and rich in artifacts, and it is called the holy Mount of Crete (Karetsou 1981, 151; Sakellarakis and Sakellarakis 1994, 136). It shows how a mountain can have a sacred landscape in which people move choreographically within various symbolically charged sites where several divinities were revered and worshipped. Juktas is a rather rich analogy for the case at Mt. Mermigkari, where the finds are considerably lower in quantity and quality, but the beliefs of the local worshippers in both areas could have been of the same importance. In that respect, and in accordance with Juktas, Mt. Mermigkari and its sacred landscape could be considered the holy mountain of Kythera (Georgiadis, forthcoming). It offered a multilevel religious experience to the pilgrims visiting its sacred landscape, unlike the simpler (in this respect) sanctuary at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno in the eastern part of the island. Additionally, in the Epic of Gilgamesh (tablet IX) there is a Mount Mashu with two summits whose roots were in the underworld (Katafygadi Cave); its peak reached the heavens (Leska) while it guarded the rising and the setting of the sun (intervisibility with Hagios Georgios sto Vouno; Marinatos 2010, 111–112). All these symbolic references can be seen to exist on Mt. Mermigkari as well, and they may have been common attributes for sacred mountains in the Eastern Mediterranean, and at Ugarit in particular (Wyatt 2007, 112–113), thus supporting our identification of Leska as a holy mountain of Kythera. The holy character of Mt. Mermigkari is supported by a concentration in the western part of the island of a sanctuary, burials, and the Katafygadi Cave, a liminal space. This circumstance is in contrast to the situation in eastern Kythera. There, the corresponding elements were differentiated, dispersed, and spatially well defined. This contrast can be attributed to some extent to the distinct settlement patterns as well as the social, economic, and political differences between the two regions. At the same time, however, a divergent tradition with a new cosmological arrangement was formulated. The belief systems in operation in the two areas were related and interactive in character, as discussed above (pp. 116–120). Nevertheless, the

significance of Mt. Mermigkari as a holy mountain for western Kythera made it more significant for the local population than a simple sanctuary. It acted as their axis mundi, the center of their social, political, and religious universe.

Routes and Pathways The presence of three sacred sites on Mt. Mermigkari, at least for the LM IB phase, makes it more pressing to address the issue of the routes and paths that interconnected them, and that connected them with the lowland where the contemporary settlements were situated. In Minoan iconography on Crete and Thera, as discussed above, there are representations of men visiting sacred sites individually or in groups. These scenes emphasize the importance of the process of accessing these sanctuaries through mountainous paths. Equally, the presence of routes identified to connect the palace of Knossos and the lowland area to Mt. Juktas, and particularly to its peak sanctuary, two pathways toward Traostalos, and a paved road leading to Kato Syme, highlight their importance (Karetsou 1980, 353; Lebessi and Muhly 1990, 319; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1994, 136; Watrous 1996, 71; Younger and Rehak 1998, 141; Chryssoulaki 2001, 58 n. 13; Rethemiotakis 2008, 83; Soar 2009, 91–93; Karetsou and Mathioudaki 2012, 100–102, figs. 24–26). To access Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, the presence of one path from the northern part of the mountain has been proposed based on local practices and the topography of the area (Sakellarakis 2013, 33). Sakellarakis (2013, 79–85) underlined in particular that ascension to the peak sanctuary was a symbolically meaningful activity and a significant aspect of the veneration of the deity. The three tops of Mt. Mermigkari could have functioned as different sacred landscapes and as three interconnected matrices, overlapping, connected in pairs, or independent from one another. The proposed antithetical relationship between Leska and the Katafygadi Cave is notable here (see this vol., p. 119), and beliefs about the afterlife and chthonic elements are shared between the Lazarianika cemetery and Katafygadi Cave. Thus, visiting one site may have been an event of its own or

L A N D S C A P E A N A LY S I S

one related to another site or with all three. For example, there could have been an annual festival of remembrance of the dead, like those that existed in historic times, such as nekysia (νεκύσια), genesia (γενέσια), or even chthonia (χθόνια; Burkert 1996, 194, 200). On that occasion, a visit may have included the local cemetery of the settlement as well as the sacred cave, due to its chthonic association with all the appropriate rituals. Experiencing the landscape as part of a pilgrimage toward peak sanctuaries is considered an important aspect in a simplistic way by Peatfield (2007, 300), and in a more meaningful way by Soar (2009, 96–98). The earlier approach of understanding the topography of peak sanctuaries in a codified way is strongly criticized by Camilla Briault (2007a, 122–123, 133–137), who goes as far as to minimize the role of landscape in favor of experience and material remains. Although her arguments against environmental determinism and a processual approach are valid, she disregards fundamental aspects of the landscape analysis by disassociating the human experience from his or her (land-)space. The overemphasis on material remains against any other data narrows the available hermeneutic tools, providing a fragmented, if not distorted picture of these sites. In that respect, Krzystof Nowicki’s criticism of such a theoretical approach is fitting (2007b, 3). Nature and culture are inseparable entities in which the human experience of the landscape, both physical and biological, is a daily praxis (Bender 1992, 742–744; Tilley 1994, 26, 31–32, 34; Barrett 1999, 255–256; Knapp and Ashmore 1999, 1). The movement of the individual in space is a process of reading space, constituting subjectivity, and reproducing society through knowledge of the ancestors, communal history, and ritual practice, thus making landscape a human, if not cultural construct (Kirk 1993, 184; Knapp and Ashmore 1999, 1). Thus, the human conceptual image and experience of the landscape is dependent on space, time, and cultural hermeneutics. The latter is the way in which people interpret their landscape through communal and individual stories, biographies, beliefs, preconceptions, memories, and experiences, both taught (sometimes imposed) and individually acquired within a cultural context (Kirk 1993, 197; Barrett 1999, 259). The understanding and interpretation of material

121

remains within space becomes meaningful only when human activity in the landscape is understood and associated. Often artifacts moving along certain paths/routes acquire biographic values of diverse character (Tilley 1999, 179). Special places, often with distinct physical characteristics, by many people are imbued with meaning and become mythologically charged locations. A dominant locale such as a sanctuary could amalgamate space and time, developing to a point or place of reference for people where social reproduction takes place (Barrett 1991, 7–8; Thomas 1993, 76). The repetition of embodied experiences through rituals in these specific locations along with the engagement of individuals with materiality can create strong memories of the past as well form new ones each time a ritual is performed (Hamilakis 2013, 168). Tilley summarizes the phenomenological approach to landscape as a nexus of relationships between body, path, and place (2007, 486–487, fig. 10.1). Paths represent the means by which human movement connects places, and at the same time they unite and form landscape as a concept. Paths are established either literally or metaphorically through repeated activities like everyday movements or rituals (Tilley 1999, 178). Leska, as a peak sanctuary, is located on the summit of a mountain peak, on a higher elevation than the places of the everyday lives of most locals—that is, habitation areas, farming fields, and even grazing grounds. Thus, in order to visit this extra-settlement sanctuary, an extra effort is needed, a process of ascending the mountain following a certain path. The experience of the worshippers accessing this sanctuary would have stressed conceptually the separation of everyday life and practices with something out of the ordinary that requires time and effort. The path would stimulate their senses and memories, and through this process add an important variable in the experience of pilgrimage, which is not restricted just to the time spent in the sanctuary (Tilley 2009, 466, 468). They would forge, establish, confirm and/or reconfirm social, religious, and communal bonds, and at the same time their journey would be an esoteric pilgrimage for the individual. The mythological parts of the paths or the landscape would become meaningful and visible, reconfirming their importance.

122

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

This process is enhanced by the liminal quality of the pilgrimage, in between the everyday and sacred (Turner 1974, 166). This element also may act as part of a rite of passage (Turner 1974, 196), if such rituals were connected with the specific sanctuary and the type of veneration conducted there. Every step in the path would bring pilgrims closer, either by ascending to the deity and his or her sacred dwelling, or by descending to their mundane daily lives. Reaching the summit would make them feel close to the divinity, and through that they would realize the extent of the land and the fact that they live on an island; it would also allow them a glimpse of the world beyond, including the sea, Crete, Antikythera, and the southern Peloponnese. Through the multisensory experience of the power of the divinity by moving toward and/or being at the sanctuary, pilgrims would realize who they were and their position in the world, an amalgamation of a physical and metaphysical cosmos. The paths at Mt. Mermigkari would have been multipurpose, allowing access and movement of people and their animal herds through the mountainous passages. At the same time, on both special annual occasions and other dates, small groups or individual pilgrims would have followed the same routes. These paths would have led from the lowland to the mountainous landscape and could have connected the three sacred sites, although only symbolically because there was no intervisibility between them. The paths also would have allowed visiting each site on its own or in any desirable combination. A number of choices would have been available to the pilgrims, which could have varied dependent upon things like the direction from whence they came, the easiest route, the fastest pathway, and the path linking all the sacred sites or others. The shape, size, and form of Mt. Mermigkari comprise a specific topographic unit located in western Kythera, with the sea situated to its west and northwest. The eastern faces of both peaks facing the Mylopotamos plateau are steep, especially Leska (Pl. 1B). Hence, the paths leading from the lowland to the Mermigkari peaks are limited to a broadly defined threes (Ill. 2). The main criterion for their identification is the presence of older traditional paths in the local topography and the identification of the least difficult means of access to these sites. The first path (path 1) is the north, where worshippers would move east–west from the Mylopotamos

plateau through the modern village of Piso Pigadi (Ill. 2:A). They would pass the local ρεύμα/ρέμα (revma/rema; stream) and begin ascending the northern slopes of Leska with views of a mountainous landscape, the sea, and Cape Tainaron to the northwest. After reaching the shoulder of the slope, they would come close to Merm.5 and turn toward the southeast, looking straight toward the Leska summit. The actual peak is not visible from this location, however, but rather from higher up, ca. 200.00 m from the summit and close to Merm.4. It would have been more practical to visit Leska first and then the Katafygadi Cave, at least in the LM IB phase, but the opposite order would not have been impractical when returning from the same path. The second path (path 2) is the east, and it could have been comprised of two important smaller paths that merge into one higher up on the mountain (Ill. 2:B1–B2). In the first (path 2a), the pilgrims would have come from the Mylopotamos plain, moving east and southeast toward the modern village of Rizes (Ill. 2:B1). This path is almost parallel to Leska, whose steep profile dominates the scenery; its top also is visible. This path follows the gentle northeast slopes of the Mermigkari peak, and it would have met the second variation (path 2b) at the site of Merm.3. The second path gives access from the plain southeast of Mt. Mermigkari and ascends the southeast slopes of the Mermigkari peak just north of the hamlet of Lazarianika (Ill. 2:B2). It follows the gentle slopes of the east face of the peak, passing northwest through Merm.1 and Merm.2, and reaching Merm.3 where the Leska peak and part of the northern plain of Mylopotamos are visible as the pilgrims look to the north (Pl. 21A). The merged upper part of the two paths comprises a western ascent of the gentler northern slopes of the Mermigkari peak. When reaching the relatively flat area between the peaks of Leska, Mermigkari, and Katafygadi, the pilgrims could have chosen to visit the Katafygadi Cave farther to the west first or move north toward the southern upper slope of the Leska peak. In this area the mountainous landscape and the three peaks dominate the scenery, with Mermigkari and Leska being the most predominant. The third path (path 3) is from the south, by which a worshipper would come from the plains to the south of the Mylopotamos area (Ill.2:C). The ascent would start from the Lazarianika hamlet, following the southwestern slopes of the Mermigkari

L A N D S C A P E A N A LY S I S

peak and passing through the Lazarianika cemetery. The path, moving in a northwest direction within a mountainous environment, would offer only glimpses of the sea to the west (Pl. 21B). As the path travels farther north, the Katafygadi and Leska peaks would be visible, with the first being closer and accessible via the last portion of the east path (path 2). Up to 1.00 km south of the Leska summit, it is possible to see a person standing on its peak. The Leska summit can be accessed by moving north, following the last leg of the east path. Returning down this path would have been the only way for someone to visit the Lazarianika cemetery after reaching Leska and/or the Katafygadi Cave. Following any of the three routes, it becomes clear that for approaching pilgrims the Leska peak and more generally the sacred landscape of Mt. Mermigkari as a whole would have been visible from some places and invisible from others. Nevertheless, all three routes contain similar landscape elements such as limestone bedrock, low vegetation, pastoral land, slopes, in some cases the sea, the dominating peak of Leska, the sun, and the blue sky, occasionally with clouds. These elements are shared by all three sites, forming a unified landscape connected by the aforementioned paths, irrespective of their differing sacred characteristics. During late summer and September, before the autumn rains, the wild herbs growing on the stony environment of the mountain had fragrances that would add additional stimuli to the pilgrims’ experience. The close association between peak sanctuary and sacred cave can be thought of as both symbolic and practical on Kythera. This relationship can be seen in the case of Leska and the Katafygadi Cave, and it is not the only example on the island. Sakellarakis (2013, 20–23), for example, has hypothesized the presence of a chasm at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, with a possible symbolic relationship between chasms, caves, and peak sanctuaries. There, however, an unspecified number of speleothems have been deposited (Banou 2012, 358, pl. 19:128). They were brought as offerings, relating a single cave or more with this particular peak sanctuary, linking symbolically the two different locales in a clear case of heterotopia (Foucault 1986, 24, 25). The character of the cave(s) from which the speleothems came, either having a sacred or simple character, remains unclear. Furthermore, their specific origin is unknown, but the Chousti Cave at Diakofti is in

123

relatively close distance and could be one candidate among several possible sources that existed across the island, like in the Hagia Moni area (Bartsiokas 1998, 37–38). Despite the fact that there are important uncertain elements, it appears that some of the pilgrims first visited caves and collected some mementos; in a later time or perhaps during the same visit they then offered them at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. Depositing speleothems also has been noted in Crete in domestic areas and sanctuaries (Rutkowski 1986, 51; Herva 2006, 591). A similar trend is known from Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Emporio on Chios, associated with cultic or magical activities (Hood 1981–1982, 636, pl. 136:54). The same objects have been noted at Early Neolithic Çatalhöyük, where they have been interpreted as exotic offerings with magical properties due to their lengthy provenance (Hodder 2016, 101). The practice of depositing speleothems is not attested at Leska, but it can be suggested that the Katafygadi Cave was visited first and then Leska, both having a close spatial and symbolic relationship. It could provide insight into a symbolic journey between sacred sites, from darkness to light and from chthonic underground to sky, rather than vice versa. These visitations to both cultic sites could have been synchronous, taking place in the same day, or asynchronous but symbolically interconnected and meaningful, possibly on specific dates. This relationship between (sacred) caves and peak sanctuaries seems to be closer and better documented at Kythera than in Crete. It may have been one more regional idiosyncrasy in ritual practices and even beliefs on Kythera within the broader framework of Minoan and Aegean religion.

Leska Peak The locations to which pilgrimages are lead are inextricably connected with a manifestation of a divinity or their power—in other words, a form of epiphany (Turner 1974, 189). Thus, a direct experience of the divine is sought by pilgrims through the process of pilgrimage and/or the visitation of the sacred location and communicating (in)directly with the divinity or feeling an esoteric change (Turner 1974, 197).

124

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

On the slopes of the Leska summit, sherds are found mainly in the west, as observed during the survey (Ill. 2). However, the excavation has demonstrated that they were the result, at least partly, of post-excavation erosion and movement, and that they possibly were also partly the remains of the ascending path to the sanctuary following the north route. During fieldwalking some sherds also were found on the southern slope. This part of the hill, however, is far from the main concentration of finds and the actual sanctuary site. The survey has produced rather limited finds in the southern part of the area covered, and thus the post-depositional hypothesis cannot be supported there. It seems that these sherds could be remains from pilgrims ascending to the summit from the south, following the east, southeast, and south routes. Reaching at the top of Leska, one realizes they are in a relatively flat area on a naturally formed terrace (Pl. 9A). The limestone bedrock is exposed in many places, but these areas do not seem distinctive in any clear way. One place that does stand out is the highest point of the peak, where there was a large oblong portion of exposed bedrock (Pl. 22A). Apart from the importance of its location at the highest point, there is a long and relatively wide hollow with cracks marking this bedrock. This element is unique among the exposed rocks due to its shape and size and the presence of the cracks. This characteristic can be interpreted in various ways (see below, this vol., Ch. 7, pp. 137– 138), and it may have had special symbolic significance for the pilgrims (Georgiadis 2016). The views at the top of Leska dominate the senses, but one also should note the great echo that exists at the site, depending on wind conditions, which allows noises like carpentry activities and even voices from the villages of Rizes and Mylopotamos to be heard. The same phenomenon has been observed in the case of Juktas, where noises from Archanes can be heard and vice versa, and between Petsophas and Palaikasto, and Filiorimos and Gonies (Kyriakidis 2005a, 19). The visibility toward the horizon in all four directions encompasses quite diverse topographical elements and environments. To the northwest part of the mountainous landscape, the sea, the Tainaron peninsula (Pl. 22B), and the Taygetos mountain range, up to its highest peak, are visible (Pl. 23A). For many months a year the peaks of Taygetos are snowclad

and clearly can be seen from Leska, ca. 100.00 km away. To the north, the plateaus and hills of the island are visible up to a few kilometers north of the Potamos village, and farther are the sea and part of lowland Laconia. To the northeast, a portion of the northern part of the island, the highest point on Elafonissos, the end of the Parnon mountain range, and the Maleas cape are clear on the horizon, as well as part of the sea (Pl. 23B). To the east, the Mylopotamos plateau and all of western Kythera are visible up to the main road connecting Chora and Potamos, in addition to high places farther to the east such as the Palaiokastro hill, the Akritas hill, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, and the Aegean Sea (Pl. 24A). To the southeast, part of the southern hills and plateaus of Kythera can be seen as well as the island of Antikythera (Pl. 24B). Farther to the south, the high mountains of Crete are visible, such as the highest Lefka Ori peaks (2,400.00 m asl) and the Goggylos peak, as well as Omalos plateau in between. In fact, when the Lefka Ori are visible from Leska, they can be envisaged schematically as a pair of horns of consecration in shape. Moreover, farther to the west the lower Mt. Prophetes Elias of the Kissamos area also can be seen. Visibility to the south beyond Kythera (i.e., to Antikythera and parts of Crete) in optimal conditions is similar to that of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Sakellarakis 2011, 16). Closer to the south, the Mermigkari peak dominates the view from Leska and prevents visibility towards the south and southwestern part of Kythera. To the southwest, the mountainous landscape of Mt. Mermigkari can be seen, where the Katafygadi Cave is located but cannot be seen; farther south, Vigla on Mt. Drymonas can be seen (Pl. 22A). Interestingly, it is the only summit visible from the southern quadrant of Leska. To the west, the mountainous environment of the Katafygadi Cave summit and slopes dominate the view, and in the background the sea is visible. Recent claims of a peak sanctuary on top of Mt. Drymonas have been made based on Minoan pottery recovered at Vigla at an altitude of just below ca. 450.00 m asl (pers. comm., G. Fragou and A. Tsravopoulos, 13 November 2012; Ill. 1; Pl. 22A). The distance between Leska and Vigla is ca. 5.40 km, and the latter is located at an azimuth of 166.64° from Leska. Furthermore, there is intervisibility between the two aforementioned locales, and the same applies to Vigla and Hagios Georgios

L A N D S C A P E A N A LY S I S

sto Vouno. Nonetheless, more thorough research should be undertaken to determine the character of Vigla, especially if it is interpreted as cultic. A potential third peak sanctuary on Kythera would be an intriguing prospect for understanding the sacred landscape of this island during the Minoan period, which is becoming increasingly complex. The areas where viewsheds are shared between the two peak sanctuaries appear to be limited in the central part of the island. The viewsheds from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno dominate the coastal lowland regions in eastern Kythera, parts of the Mitata plateau, and less so the southern part of the island. It is particularly visible from the east face of the Hagia Elessa, Drymonas, and Mermigkari mountains (Pl. 25A), however, and also from a small area around Potamos. Nonetheless, the survey conducted in the central-east part of the island by KIP has demonstrated that the selection of the locations of the Neopalatial sites was not related to their visual contact with Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Broodbank 2004, 80). The viewshed from Leska is clear in the western inland plateaus, from the central part of the island, and almost as far north as Karavas. Several parts of the southern plateaus view Leska, as well as the western face of Mt. Digenis and the upland area that extends to its west. Overall, a very large proportion of the island’s area had visual contact with either one or both of the peak sanctuaries. Landscape, topography, and visibility appear to be rather significant for Kytheran religious beliefs and the locations chosen for its sanctuaries. Special reference should be made of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, which is a peak sanctuary, and thus it and Leska have clear intervisibility (Ill. 1; Pls. 24A, 25A). Their distance apart is ca. 13.50 km, situated at an azimuth of 87.37° in relation to Leska, almost due east. If a straight east–west line was run through and beyond Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, Leska would be situated just ca. 500.00 m to its south. An interesting parallel comes from eastern Crete in the peak sanctuaries of Modi and Petsophas. At the first, intervisibility with the latter is at an azimuth of 89.19°, and thus when at Modi, the sunrise was viewed during the equinoxes over Petsophas, and at Petsophas the sunset would be over the peak of Modi (Blomberg and Henriksson 2001, 611– 613, fig. 4; 2011, 64). Thus, during some specific dates every year the sun would rise at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno

125

looking from Leska, and set at Leska looking from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. Moreover, taking into account both the topographical characteristics and the changes they underwent during almost four millennia (Hoskin 2001, 16–18), it can be proposed that the two sites would have been connected through the sun’s daily movement during the spring (20th– 21st April) and the days very close to the autumn equinox (22nd–23rd September; Georgiadis 2016). The fact that Hagios Georgios sto Vouno views the sun rising over the sea, and Leska views it setting over the sea suggests that there could be symbolism in the daily movement of the sun associated with the sea as well (Tilley 2009, 462). These dates may have symbolized the death and regeneration of nature in an agricultural cycle, the beginning of spring and the beginning of autumn. Incidentally, in Classical Greece, the New Year was celebrated in some poleis during spring (Burkert 1996, 228), while the agricultural calendar started in September (Isager and Skydsgaard 1995, 161–162). The symbolic significance of the sun also could have been seen as the daily death and rebirth of the sun and light from a dark marine underworld, providing insight into the cosmological order in which Kytherans believed. This bipolarity of light and darkness may be of further symbolism, representing the dichotomy between death, attested in dark locales such as chamber tombs and sacred caves (Katafygadi and possibly Hagia Sofia), and life in the sun’s light at the two peak sanctuaries. Horns of consecration have been interpreted recently as two mountains with a horizon in between wherein the sun rises, based on Egyptian and Near Eastern symbolism (Wyatt 2007). The sun, the moon, and the stars are closely related with deities in Ugaritic and more broadly in Near Eastern and Mesopotamian beliefs (Wyatt 2007, 133). The clay horns of consecration have been recovered equally at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and Leska, supporting the proposed sun-related link between the two peak sanctuaries. Interestingly enough, the relationship between peak sanctuaries with the sunrise has been pointed out by Faure (1965, 49–50) and more recently by Peatfield (2009, 259; 2013, 480). The movement of the sun was used in the alignment of the courts in Minoan palaces in order to illuminate particular rooms (Goodison 1989, 77; 2001, 81–84, 87; Hitchcock 2007, 91; Henriksson and Blomberg 2011, 60, 64), and a symbolic role of the sun in relation to sacred caves has

126

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

been proposed (Tyree 2001, 44). Autumn is also related to the collection of crocus flowers from mountainous areas by women, as suggested in Minoan and Theran iconography (Negbi and Negbi 2002, 267; Day 2011, 339; Beckmann 2014a, 321, contra Sakellarakis 2013, 51). This activity is linked not only to religious beliefs and practices, like in the frescoes from Thera and Crete where they take place in rocky settings (Negbi and Negbi 2002, 268, figs. 5, 6), but they also are associated with peak sanctuaries, as the Kato Zakros rhyton has shown (Day 2011, 345, 357, 369). Crocus plants are also attested in numbers on the island of Kythera, including on Mt. Mermigkari. The crocus motif is also common in the Neopalatial period, even on Kythera, with this decoration attested on pots found at Kastri. Furthermore, stone blossom bowls are believed to represent the crocus flower, and these are attested in the Kastri tombs and in a clay version in the Lazarianika grave on the lower slope of Mt. Mermigkari (Bevan 2007, 130–131; Day 2011, 357–358). It seems that the collection of crocus flowers was an important activity with practical and symbolic meanings for the community, while their harvest took place on mountainous locations in autumn. Taking this fact into account in addition to the proposed timeframes for the veneration of the divinity, crocus collection might be another symbolic link and activity related to the cult practices at Leska. The gathering of the flower may have been part of a festival, some may have been presented to the deity as an offering, or the freshly collected crocus might have even been the main ingredient of the food consumed in feasting at the sanctuary. In different seasons of the year, the scenery at the peak sanctuary of Leska can be altered in different ways, like by the presence of extensive clouds in a distance on the horizon. Furthermore, in winter and spring especially, the higher, snow-covered summits of Mt. Taygetos and Lefka Ori would have been either clearly visible or not visible at all, adding a new impressive seasonal element to the scenery. Thus, the experiences of the worshippers likely varied as they ascended, viewing more or less landscape elements around them. These differences could have been attributed to the divinity’s powers, and the views from the paths and the peak sanctuary itself could have been considered the result of the deity’s willingness and benevolence toward the pilgrims visiting their sanctuary. Through personal

experience, worshippers would have believed that they were closely interacting with the deity. Two main powerful, alternate weather conditions are attested on the Leska peak, winds and cloudsmist. Powerful winds would have made any ascent to the mountain a difficult task, while visibility would have been more limited. The feeling of a powerful wind could have been seen as a form of epiphany, if it was considered to be within the powers of the divinity. In these conditions, libations, for example, would have been more difficult to perform and offerings would have been placed within crevices and between large rocks to protect them from the elements. The presence of a cloud or mist would have made ascent slow, with visibilities of only 10.00–20.00 m, and the top would not have been visible (Pl. 25B). If visits were made in groups, worshippers would have moved closer to each other for safety. On the summit, a completely different landscape would have been seen, wherein visibility could have been minimal. This would have resulted a localized experience, extending no farther than the boundaries of the sanctuary itself. The presence of the worshippers within clouds, which are usually only visible from the ground, must have been thought as a form of contact with the divinity where earth and sky met. The epiphany with their deity in a secluded, altered, out-of-the-ordinary environment must have been a unique and powerful personal experience (Pl. 26). In weather conditions when clouds were likely to generate rain and/or thunderbolts, however, an ascent to the peak may have been avoided. Nevertheless, the view of Leska from the lowlands below would have been dominant, generating powerful images overcasting the landscape of the island. Leska offers another important fact: the awareness that worshippers lived in an insular environment. Thus, they could witness that there was a larger world around them, of which they were a part. This sanctuary functioned as a cosmological map where the natural was interwoven with the symbolic world to form a single entity. Repeated ascents to and activities on the Leska peak, with the visibility it offered, would have created communal mnemonic and embodied experiences (Hamilakis 2013, 168). The practiced rituals, including feasting, would have enhanced further the symbolic significance this site had to the locals that participated at the activities that were taking place at this sanctuary.

L A N D S C A P E A N A LY S I S

Why the Leska Peak? A valid question to address is why Leska peak was chosen for the sanctuary and not the other two peaks of the same mountain. It is easy to understand why the summit of the Katafygadi Cave was not preferred. Although it was a cave where ritual activities took place, it may have coexisted with the peak sanctuary, as parallels from Mt. Juktas suggest. However, the cave’s summit is visible only to a very limited extent from the lowlands, arguing that visibility was a primary concern for the location chosen for the Leska sanctuary. This intervisibility between peak sanctuaries and settlements has been stressed and discussed previously by many scholars and reconfirmed here. The Mermigkari and Leska peaks share very similar topographical characteristics and are situated in a similar way within the landscape of the island. Nevertheless, Mermigkari is not only larger in size but also higher in altitude, and it offers better visibility from afar and from all lowland areas and has better visibility to the south from its summit. Moreover, both tops meet the topographic criteria set by Peatfield (1983) for peak sanctuaries. However, in order to understand the choices of people establishing these sanctuaries in specific locations, a better appreciation of the local variables should be taken into account, not using only generalized criteria that have been applied to a number of different types of landscapes. Despite the size of Mermigkari, Leska appears to be a more prominent mountain especially to its east side, facing Mylopotamos plateau, the lowlands and the Minoan settlements (Ill. 2). This is achieved through its steepness and its exposed bedrocks forming cliffs (leskes). A location with a similar dramatic appearance, with cliffs situated on the side of the peak facing a settlement, has also been observed in Cretan peak sanctuaries (Nowicki 1994, 34; 2007b, 5, 24; Chryssoulaki 1999, 310; Soetens, Sarris, and Toupouzi 2006, 321; Soetens 2009, 263). Furthermore, the shape of the Leska peak is conical and pointed, perhaps closer to an idealized image of a mountain. Another factor could have been that Leska was visible more clearly from the northeast—that is, the region from Mylopotamos up to Potamos—than was the Mermigkari peak. In this fertile area, there might have been a number

127

of scattered settlements, possibly with a larger one at Foinikies and around Potamos, the residents of which visited this sanctuary (Paspalas and Gregory 2009, 555, fig. 3). Both Mermigkari and Leska would have provided intervisibility with Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. As discussed previously, however, Leska is closer in alignment to the east–west axis of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, while Mermigkari would have been almost three times farther. This circumstance may have been related to solar movement and the symbolic connection of the two sites, Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, on specific occasions. Leska also could have been a major stop on an inland path from the wider Mylopotamos area to the port of Limnionas, ca. 3.50 km downhill from Leska. With a small ascent through the Rizes village, one could have the clearest view of the sea and its conditions, in addition to the maritime traffic in the northwestern part of the island from Kythera up to the cape of Tainaron and beyond. A request for or expression of thanks for good weather and favorable wind from the divinity of the sanctuary may have been appropriate or even necessary for a safe trip or a rich catch of fish. In that respect, the Leska peak is more strategically placed on the inland paths than the others. Limnionas is the only accessible port in the central-western part of the island, and it is close enough to this fertile lowland region. Clouds crown Mt. Mermigkari as a whole, but often smaller ones prefer the Leska peak. Thus, the relationship between clouds and rain may have been significant for the Mylopotamos area. This region is rich in water resources, with wells at the Rizes village and sources of running water with prominent revmata at Mylopotamos, Piso Pigadi, and Kato Chora forming waterfalls even in high summer. Still, in this water-rich environment rain was of primary importance to sustain agricultural resources in a land that, on its own, is not particularly rich. The plain formed here allows good arable land, which is well watered—an ideal combination rarely attested on the rest of the island. Interestingly, this region extends east of the Leska peak and around the Mylopotamos village, but not too far to the south. The difference in fertility and water between the areas east of Leska and east of Mermigkari is apparent. Thus, the location

128

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

of Leska closer to the fertile region and the attributed properties of cloud-gathering and rain may have been the reason for making it the center of this cult. In other words, Leska may have been thought of as the medium through which more clouds, rain, and water came to the land in wells, springs, and perennial streams: a blessing from the deity. A close relationship between springs and peak sanctuaries has been noted at some central and central-western Cretan peak sanctuaries (Soetens 2009, 264). Perhaps a similar symbolic association existed at Leska, emphasizing that in these peak sanctuaries a deity connected to the sky and rain was revered. The prominence of Leska and the paths that pass through it leading to Limnionas may have been among the important qualities of this peak, but they were not decisive for choosing its location. The most prominent factor for this choice was the fact that Leska looms over the most fertile and water-rich lands in this part of the island. This fact emphasizes that it had a primary connection to farmers and their agricultural activities rather than the pastoral, and therefore the symbolic importance of cloud and rain was associated. Its close alignment with Hagios Georgios sto Vouno is significant but secondary for the choice of the location. The relationship between the two sanctuaries is a symbolic and possibly symbiotic connection, underlining the role of the sun and adding more elements to their religious significance.

A Kytheran Cultic Landscape The complex cultic landscape of Mt. Mermigkari was part of the broader sacred context on Kythera. For the moment, we have evidence exclusively of extra-settlement cultic sites, but most certainly equally significant sites existed within the settlements as well. The cases of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and Leska are clear, and they can be recognized as peak sanctuaries. The exact character of the Katafygadi Cave is still unclear, but there was a definite cultic use of the site. The site at Vigla on Mt. Drymonas is proposed to be a peak sanctuary due to its location and based on the character of limited surface finds. The Hagia Sofia cave at

Kalamos is another possibility of a cultic place due to the high-quality pottery recovered there. Taking into consideration that two sacred caves also potentially existed on Kythera, an even more complex cultic landscape is formed. Although the evidence for both Vigla and Hagia Sofia is far from conclusive regarding their character, I will consider them cult sites as a working hypothesis below. In this way, I can explore further and in a broader scale whether a better understanding of the cultic landscape on the island can be provided. The scattered location of these sites across the island is particularly interesting for landscape analysis. They are found in the central-east, central-west, southwest, and southeast parts of Kythera. If these sites acted as extra-settlement sacred sites, they could have served distinct microregions that were far away and/or more separated from each other. In fact, these sites seem to serve all agropastoral areas in the central and southern parts of Kythera. They are all found in mountainous or hilly locations close to the sea, but not on the coast. All appear to be oriented primarily toward the interior of the island rather than externally visible. In this respect, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno is an exception, being equally visible from the interior of the island as from the sea. The presence of a number of relatively small and well-dispersed sacred sites across the landscape of Kythera makes sense, because they could serve the scattered population. The surveys in the center-east and north have revealed that all parts of the island were occupied and emphasized their small, fragmented character. A single sanctuary in the central-eastern part of the island like Hagios Georgios sto Vouno would have been impractical for inhabitants of the north, west, and south. These sites all seem to have been placed at the edges of Kythera looking toward the inland center. Thus, the emphasis appears to be on the land and its protection or fertility, which formed the basis for the agro-silvopastoral economy of the island. The scale and wealth of the other sites are unimpressive, especially as compared to the rich peak sanctuary of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. This would be expected, however, in such a disperse landscape of sanctuaries on an island with limited material and population resources like Kythera. A rough estimate of population between 3,600 and 7,400, recently slightly increased with a preference

L A N D S C A P E A N A LY S I S

for the lower end, is assumed by scholars for the entire island (Bevan 2002, 246; Broodbank 2004, 78). A large proportion, even more than half, is thought to have been located at Kastri and in its immediate periphery, and the rest of the inhabitants would have lived in the hinterland (Bevan 2002, 246). Thus, Hagios Georgios sto Vouno would have served the largest and wealthiest segments of the population that lived on the island. Its worshippers would have been equally urban and rural, members of both the upper and lower social strata, as the finds seem to suggest (Sakellarakis 2013, 114). It also would be fair to assume that the regional sanctuaries would have served a few hundred people who inhabited the immediate area, and possibly also pilgrims from farther away on the island. The size of most of the settlements on the island and their rural character suggest that there were limited resources and access to materials and goods for status and wealth display like those seen at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. With the exception of this large sanctuary, a similarity in magnitude and in the quality, and possibly quantity of the finds deposited in the rest of the sanctuaries would be expected. Nonetheless, differences in ritual practices and in the beliefs and/or deities worshipped, and most importantly no cultic uniformity, should be envisaged.

129

The characterization of two sites, Vigla and the Hagia Sofia cave, as cult related is supported by finds that arguably could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Their location in the landscape, however, seems to fit into the hypothesis of a scattered settlement pattern in which there were corresponding, dispersed extra-settlement sanctuaries. The peak sanctuary and sacred cave types also have parallels on contemporary Kythera that favor such identification. The evidence for these two cases remains circumstantial, and confirmation through thorough research is needed. At the same time it, seems more and more likely that the proposed hypothesis makes more sense on a local and insular scale, especially when the landscape characteristics of the settlements and the sanctuaries are taken into account. The coexistence of peak sanctuaries and sacred caves on a regional scale is also a very interesting phenomenon. The density of all these cultic sites is similar to the pattern identified in Protopalatial and Neopalatial East Crete, but both of these cultic types coexisted in Central Crete. It is apparent that the sacred landscape on Kythera was rather complex in the meanings and expressions that encompassed the entire island, due to its idiosyncratic settlement pattern, at least for the Neopalatial period, if not earlier.

7

Rituals, Cult, and Beliefs

Religion includes rituals, cultic activities, mythological stories, and beliefs, which provide multiple meanings and symbolisms, presented in an organized and often institutionalized form. Religions are closely linked with their particular historical and sociocultural frameworks, and thus their expressions and characteristics are numerous and diverse. The common denominator of all religions is that they are a means for contemplating and intervening in what lies beyond (Hodder 2016, 97). This process potentially can be manipulated by dominant groups to promote their own ideologies and agendas, but religions were not originally formed in order to serve such a purpose. Religion combines embodied knowledge, intellectual achievements, and practical interventions, elements that are closely related to materiality (Hodder 2016, 98–99, 102). It also is entwined with most institutions and aspects of everyday life, which allows its continuity and longevity (Hodder 2016, 100). Religion strengthens social ties and solidarity among the participants of religious events, as Durkheim proposes (1964, 341), sometimes related to strong

emotions (DeMarrais 2014, 157). Thus, it influences various social levels from the individual to far larger groups of people (Insoll 2004, 89). For Leska, the Minoan religion is a contemporary example that can act as a broader context in which the site can be better understood (Rutkowski 1986; Warren 1988). This circumstance is due to the proximity of the site to Crete, the cultural influence that Crete exercised on Kythera, and the depth of our knowledge about Cretan religion. The most important aspects of this religion as it relates to Leska were outlined in Chapter 1 (see this vol., pp. 8–15).

Rituals Defining and, even more importantly, identifying ancient rituals is not an easy task, since usually ordinary or unspecialized objects are used. Usually, the dichotomy of ritual vs. secular is taken as

132

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

a starting point by modern scholars, but in many cases such an approach is misleading and counterproductive (Eliade 1996, 1; Brück 2007, 281, 289), especially farther back in time. In most cases, however, human activities include both ritual and secular aspects. Moreover, the interrelations between religion, society, and politics in prehistoric societies were in most cases inseparable in the minds of the people at the time (Hinnells 2007, 3). Thus, to suggest the ritual activities that took place is more an issue of our conception and interpretation of the available data. Our aim is to apprehend these societies in terms of how people acted, but at the same time we should realize that the analytical and hermeneutic tools we have may separate artificially behaviors and phenomena for the benefit of our current understanding. Furthermore, the dialectic relationship between ritual and religion should be stressed, since archaeologists tend to give emphasis to either one of these elements (Fogelin 2007, 56; Kyriakidis 2007b, 290–291; Laneri 2015, 1). All these realizations often add to the confusion inherent in the identification of cult, rituals, and religion. In that framework, the spirited definition of rituals for archaeologists provided by Paul Bahn does not come as a surprise: “Ritual: all-purpose explanation used where nothing else comes to mind” (1989, 62). Perhaps John Barrett’s interpretation of rituals as the reproductive force for the “elements of the symbolic system,” which may replicate or renegotiate the social order, provides a better way to understand them (1991, 7–8). Although even in this case social order is prioritized and separated from the symbolic system, it is a good starting point for our analysis. Ritual actions form a close interrelation between the human agent and the material culture, heightened within a sacred context (Kyriakidis 2007b, 292). A drawback, however, is that the material remains represent just a small part of the rituals performed at a sacred site, and thus only a small portion can be identified archaeologically (Kyriakidis 2007a, 9; 2007b, 297). In the case of Leska, the location and character of the site proposed here allows the identification of most of the activities taking place within the space of this sanctuary as ritual. Performances and materiality are both interrelated and integral components of performed rituals, with a large diversity of meanings and symbolisms (DeMarrais 2014, 156–158). Here, the data from the finds

will be related to the landscape analysis in Chapter 6 (see this vol., pp. 116–129). Landscape in this type of sanctuary in my opinion is an integral part of the performed rituals, both in the sense of seeing and being shown, and it is even multisensory-synesthetic in character, as also discussed in Chapter 6 (pp. 120–126) and which has been discussed in relation to other Minoan contexts (Hamilakis 2013). Hence, the actual location of this site, the views it offered, and the special features within the sanctuary should be considered as ritual elements. Moreover, some of the local ritual practices could have been closely related to topographic features within the sanctuary or even dependent upon the position of the site, such as the movement of pilgrims through the landscape and pathways. In the previous chapter, the symbolic significance of the landscape features of this site were discussed. In the following, the material remains of the sanctuary will be presented, and their relationship to possible performed rituals will be analyzed.

Protopalatial Phase The establishment of the peak sanctuary on Leska during the Protopalatial period—that is, the MM IB–II phase—is the starting point of this analysis. Although the data from this period are extremely limited, an assessment will be attempted. It seems that during this period of use the sanctuary was restricted to the northern part of the site, extending from T.1 to T.3, suggesting spatial development over time. The special bedrock area on the very top of the mountain also produced clear evidence of use during this phase. The finds included sherds from open vessels, mainly cups, suggesting that drinking and libations were already being performed, practices that continued to a large extent during the Neopalatial period. The discovery of a plate or tray argues that dry food was brought to the sanctuary, but it is unclear whether its contents were brought as an offering to the deity(-ies) and/or to be consumed by the participants as part of local rituals. Interestingly, this shape became rare in the subsequent phase of the sanctuary; it possibly was replaced by other types of vessels of smaller size. The relatively limited finds from the Protopalatial phase at Leska is paralleled at Hagios Georgios

R I T U A L S , C U LT, A N D B E L I E F S

sto Vouno. In this site, open vessels, primarily cups, are popular in the small assemblage, while a plate or tray also has been recovered (Tournavitou 2000, 298–299; 2014, chart 1). It is interesting to note that no clay or bronze figurines of any type could be dated exclusively to this early phase at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Banou 2012, 382–384; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2012, 95–106). The relative lack of figurines deposited at both Kytheran sanctuaries is in contrast to the great quantities found at nearly all Protopalatial peak sanctuaries in Crete (Jones 1999, table 10). Although the similarities in the remains from both peak sanctuaries on Kythera show common practices during the Protopalatial period, we should not forget that this picture comes from a limited number of finds. At any rate, it appears that the development of these two sanctuaries during the Neopalatial period differed, yet another phenomenon that needs to be explained.

Neopalatial Phase The types of vases from Leska during the Neopalatial period provide a template upon which some ritual activities can be proposed to have taken place. Thus, libations, drinking and/or feasting, and votive offerings can be detected in the material remains. Libations Pouring vessels and cups could have been used for libations, for example, pouring liquids onto the ground, into the wind, and/or onto the exposed natural bedrock for cleaning or purifying with wine and/or other liquids. This practice appears to have been a significant part of the performed rituals, judging by the number of recovered vessels that could have been used in such a way. This circumstance could explain the popularity of jugs, which can be multifunctional, used for drinking/ feasting/libation and purification according to the rituals that were followed. The liquids presented to the deities in Linear B texts include oil (simple and perfumed), honey, wine, and possibly unguents (Palaima 2004b, 446– 448; 2010; Bendall 2007, tables 3-1, 6-28, 7-1). The latter are ambiguous, and references to them on tablets are recovered only at Pylos. Although these items would be expected, as they are identical to

133

later Greek offerings to the Olympian gods, the confirmation of their use in texts is very helpful for our assumptions. It should be mentioned also that the evidence for these commodities at Knossos could be just 100–150 years later than the latest use of Leska (Bendall 2007, 11–12), and the Minoan rituals are unlikely to have changed radically in such a short period. In fact, a Linear A inscription symbolizing wine is seen on a MM IIIB pithos associated with the Central Sanctuary at the Palace of Knossos (Christakis 2010, 54–55). Furthermore, scenes of libations performed by mythical creatures like genii with jugs are a common theme in Minoan iconography (Peatfield 1995, 225), highlighting the use of liquids in cult activities. Some of the liquids mentioned in the Linear B tablets, such as wine, honey, oil, and possibly milk, could have been used partly for libations, and the rest would have been consumed during feasting. Vessels such as the different types of jugs, spouted jars, amphorae, and jars/pithoid jars recovered at Leska could have served as containers for wine, milk, and oil. The cups of all types, the smaller bowls, and the rhyta could have been utilized by individual worshippers to perform libations. The juglets could have contained honey, unguents, and/ or scented oil, all of which would have been used in the same fashion. Interestingly, for the Hittites shedding the blood of a sacrificed animal, offering a drink to the deity, or pouring a libation onto the ground had the same symbolic importance (Gurney 1990, 125). This fact could explain the popularity of jugs, the extent to which libations were performed at Leska, and the lack of bones and evidence for animal sacrifice. Kimberley Patton maintains that libation and animal sacrifice did not always coexist in religious rituals, but that the former can be found on its own (2009, 32). She bases her argument on the lack of iconographic representations of animal sacrifice in Protopalatial and Neopalatial Crete, and also on some Archaic eastern Aegean examples like Athena Lindia on Rhodes (Patton 2009, 32). However, for Minoan Crete there is sufficient evidence to support the depiction of animal sacrifice in art, at least in some cases (Younger 1988, 176–177). The general importance of rain and fertility in Minoan religion symbolized through libation rituals had been proposed by Peatfield (1995, 227). For Soetens, mountains that attracted clouds, rain, and lighting are ideal sites to ask for rainfall that would

134

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

provide surrounding springs with water; thus, he proposes that the libations performed on peak sanctuaries were concentrated in chasms, crevices, and human-made containers or objects brought to these sites (Soetens 2009, 265). In that way, liquids would be symbolic offerings to the mountains, through the roots of which the rain would fill the springs and, more broadly, fertilize the agricultural land. The same symbolic attributes could be proposed for Leska, providing water to the almost perennial streams of the Mylopotamos area along with local springs. Feasting The Leska peak sanctuary is located in a mountainous environment where pastoralism is expected to have dominated the local economy. Nonetheless, the lack of animal bones comes in sharp contrast to the animals named in the banquet lists of the Mycenaean palaces (Bendall 2007, 36–58, tables 3-1, 6-28, 7-1). This fact suggests that animals were an expensive part of the feasting that took place at sanctuaries, and that the palace, by providing them, had control over them as well. The dispersed settlement pattern already noted in western Kythera, and the lack of a powerful administrative center, could explain partly the lack of evidence for animal sacrifice and the consumption of animals at Leska. Even if the sacrifice and/or consumption of an animal was an expensive offering, one would expect the occasional occurrence, especially in a pastoral environment. The sacrifice aspect of animal offerings as part of the locally performed rituals is further negated by the lack of fire remains observed in the area of the sanctuary. The total absence of animal bones from the material assemblage at Leska is conspicuous and not related to economic reasons; it was most probably associated exclusively with religious ones. A similar trend has been identified at the peak sanctuaries of Atsipades and Vrysinas in Crete (Peatfield 1992, 66; Papadopoulou and Tzachili 2011, 298). After the first rains of autumn, the collection and consumption of snails would have been another available food resource. Snails may have been substituted for meat in the food, leaving no material remains if their shells were disposed of during the cooking process.

Thus, only the religious beliefs associated with the cult of the specific deity worshipped at Leska can provide a broader image of why animals were not sacrificed or consumed locally. Interestingly enough, at the altar of Zeus Hypatos, the highest on the Acropolis of Athens, animal sacrifice was forbidden, and only cakes were offered to the deity in classical and later times (Paus. 1.26.5). There is a clear disassociation between the sky deity and blood or animal offerings, providing a good parallel for Leska. A restriction in the consumption of a particular foodstuff is a well-known practice among religions, and a number of ethnographic parallels can be evoked (see Dietler 2011, 190–191). The aim of the establishment of such a taboo is to demonstrate the virtues of the worshipper, like devotion, piety, and self‐control, preparing them for participating in rituals, and even evoking altered states of consciousness. Moreover, in classical antiquity the consumption of specific foods was considered a form of pollution in the worship of some deities, and thus they were often forbidden (Guettel Cole 2007, 281). Linear B tablets could also provide evidence for materials consumed in religious contexts that would not survive in the archaeological record. These commodities include wheat, barley, flour, (dried) figs, olives, Cyperus, cheese, sheepskin, wool, and textiles (Killen 2004, 156–163, tables 8.1–8.5; Palaima 2004a, 232; Bendall 2007, tables 3-1, 6-28, 7-1). Some can provide a more vivid image of at least part of the foodstuffs consumed during feasting. Bread and cheese very often were among the foods offered to Hittite deities as well (Gurney 1990, 125). Others such as sheepskin, wool, and textiles are difficult to envisage having been used in a peak sanctuary. The use of these objects remains unclear: whether they represented only offerings to the deity or played a part in the performed rituals. The image of religion that the Linear B texts provide is based on the produce managed by the palaces and does not cover the entire contemporary agricultural spectrum of these societies. Thus, pulses, vegetables, and other types of fruits are not mentioned in the texts in general. All this information should be considered in association with the food preparation and consumption that was taking place at peak sanctuaries and at Leska in particular. In the cooking pots, most probably stews, broths, and soups would have been

R I T U A L S , C U LT, A N D B E L I E F S

prepared, having wheat and/or barley as their main ingredient or pulses along with various vegetables. The tripod vessels were used for cooking in the habitation area and then as containers for the transportation of their contents to the sanctuary. Flour could have been used for the preparation of bread, pitas, pies, and/or cakes, which could have been placed within the conical bowls, basins, kalathoi, and even jars/pithoid jars. In fact, the remains of grain have been recovered in closed vessels at Cretan peak sanctuaries, while in the same contexts miniature clay models represent plates with loaves of bread (Rutkowski 1986, 94), and grain possibly was found in one case at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno (Banou 2012, 333, fig. 196, pl. 13:74), strengthening the claim for Leska. In the closed vessels, other dry foods could have been carried, including cheese, olives, vegetables, nuts, dried figs, and other fruits. Similar containers in in a variety of shapes in basket form also could have been employed for the same functions and would have left no trace. This hypothesis can be substantiated by the scene on a stone rhyton from Knossos wherein a man is offering a basket with unknown offerings at a peak sanctuary (Logue 2004, 153, fig. 1). It is important to note that no cooking occurred in situ, suggesting that this process was not connected directly with the ritual aspects of the deity’s cult. It is also possible that some of the dry goods were parts of the first crops brought to the sanctuary as votive offerings to the deity for blessing a new crop or for promoting land fertility. As argued in Chapter 6 (see this vol., pp. 125–126), the collection and the use of crocus in the prepared foods may have been an important element and part of the feasting process. The consumption of food could have been accomplished with the use of conical cups and bowls (Sakellarakis 2013, 69), the dry commodities straight from their containers. Pouring vessels would have been employed to fill cups of all types, from which individuals would have drank. Feasting possibly was the last part of the rituals performed within the sanctuary area. For Mircea Eliade, feasts were an integral part of farming festivals, symbolizing the concentration of power for the regeneration of the land (1996, 350). They also symbolize a kind of indirect communication and participation in an event alongside the local deity (Dietler 2001, 78).

135

The preference for closed vessels at Leska, in contrast to Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, could be placed within this framework. Shapes such as jugs and jars are better represented in the overall pottery assemblage, containing both liquids and dry produce. This trend suggests that more food and drink provisions were brought ready-made to this sanctuary for consumption than to Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. This circumstance could indicate an alternative strategy to the in-situ preparation of food attested at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, and/or that the feasting at Leska was a longer and more extensive celebratory event. Furthermore, at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno the consumption of sheep/goats, pigs, bovines, chickens, birds, land snails, and shells provide an image of some of the types of food consumed during religious festivities (Trantalidou 2013; Sakellarakis 2013, 69). The significance of feasting also should be stressed, especially since we are discussing a moreor-less egalitarian society in western Kythera made out of agriculturalists and pastoralists, which lived in a dispersed settlement pattern consisting mainly of farmsteads and hamlets. The communal character of the gatherings in an open space within an imposing landscape setting in addition to the eating and drinking would have heightened the senses of the participants, forming strong embodied memories (Hamilakis 2013, 170). Feasting would have strengthened even more the bonds between individuals and families or kin-groups, having a homogenizing effect toward solidarity, intimacy, and equality among individuals (Durkheim 1964, 341; Appadurai 1981, 508; Dietler 2001, 68–69; Hayden 2001, 29–30). Common experiences would have been lived, strengthening the social bonds between participants, but still ambiguity and the differing interpretation of events may have taken place. Interestingly, for Michael Dietler, feasting may have been the only form of labor mobilization in societies without political elite and/or leadership, as it is largely maintained here for western Kythera (1990, 365). Additionally, in a comparison between Minoan and Mycenaean feasting, Elisabetta Borgna suggests that the aim of the first was more solidarity, and that of the latter more social differentiation (2004, 269). Still, through feasting and group sharing a common identity is formed on a local or

136

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

regional level, having the sanctuary as a symbolic and physical center of their cosmos. Pottery Offerings All pottery recovered at Leska can be considered votive offerings to the deity, whether on their own or along with their contents. They most likely represent a majority of the items brought to this site. The recovery of numerous cooking utensils, such as the tripod cooking pots, supports this hypothesis. This claim is common for peak sanctuaries in Crete as well, but often no analysis of its meaning is provided. As mentioned, Leska served a number of dispersed agro-silvopastoral communities. The festival(s) held annually on this peak sanctuary could have been the only occasion when people came in groups. The consumption and disposal of a pottery set (eating, drinking, serving, displaying, and/or cooking vases) therefore should be considered in this context. A considerable number of vessels would have been taken out of circulation, and we know from the fabric analyses that they were not locally made but rather produced and imported from other parts of Kythera. Judging from the limited number of main production areas and the lack of a local manufacturing area, their circulation across the island should be considered frequent and the value of pottery low. The deposited vases could have been either new, intended perhaps only for consumption within the sanctuary context, or older and used. In the first scenario, these vessels and their contents would have been an additional expense, particular only to a single occasion. In the second, an older pottery set symbolically could have signified disassociation, the end of using old things that belong to the old year and the beginning of a new, if a festival coincided with a New Year celebration in agropastoral or calendar terms. In either case, the disposal of these objects appears to have been a considerable expenditure. The latter hypothesis is more appealing when combined with other finds such as the metal and stone vases and the tools that appear to have been deposited after they had been in use. One might assume that the amount of food and drink brought to the sanctuary would have been analogous to the pottery. However, alternative containers such as baskets and animal skin flasks could

have played similar roles, but possibly to a lesser degree. The overall quantities of the offerings presented at Leska could have been comparable to an annual indication or display of the crop yield for each family or kin-group in front of the regional community. In a good year, it would have been easier to bring more surplus for consumption in more vessels that are easier to replace. The agrosilvopastoral surplus differentiation could have been based on several factors like land or animal holding, arable land location, annual weather conditions, microclimate, access to water, available manpower, crop and/or land diversification, combination of land-animal assets, any additional resources such as social alliances on regional and interregional levels, and participation in exchange networks. In this socio-cultic framework, interfamily competition through display can be envisaged based on annual agro-silvopastoral produce. Results would have varied over the years, and thus inequalities would have fluctuated within a—broadly speaking— egalitarian society, and the differentiation would have been horizontal, based on age and/or sex, rather than vertical. Nonetheless, if good yields were achieved for a considerable time, it could have had a significant impact on the status of a family, which could have been important in short-term social strategies for local alliances. These alliances could have been formed through marriage bonds that would have ensured an additional advantage in sustainability, even in years of bad harvest. For us, minor or negligible social differences in the material culture of broadly egalitarian societies could be more significant and/or sufficient for status differentiation among the members of such agrosilvopastoral communities. Other Offerings Most of the small finds can also be seen as votive offerings, some intended for everyday use in agricultural and/or household activities, such as the stone vessels and tools; and others with more symbolic roles in accordance with the character of the specific site, like the clay representations of horns of consecration (F2–F5), a prominent Minoan religious symbol. Furthermore, objects of personal use were dedicated, such as the bronze parts of a pin and a pendant (M1, M3). Plants, herbs, flowers, possibly garlands, and the first harvest

R I T U A L S , C U LT, A N D B E L I E F S

of the season also may have been among the offerings placed on the exposed bedrock within the precincts of the sanctuary (Warren 1988, 24, 26– 27; Sakellarakis 2013, 70). Similar practices are well documented during classical times, including the offering of food, especially at rural shrines in honor of lesser deities and heroes (Burkert 1996, 66–69). The similarities between Classical and Minoan traditions can be inferred from iconographic scenes related to religious activities at various forms of Minoan shrines, including peak sanctuaries. On the Kato Zakros rhyton, branches of trees/bushes are depicted on one of the altars of the peak sanctuary (see this vol., Ch. 1, p. 13). The offering of a basket at Gypsades also reminds us that materials that do not leave traces were offered at such places, and in the frescos on Thera, baskets were associated with the collection of crocus flowers (Evans 1928, 752, fig. II; Warren 1969, 175, nos. P474, P476). Previously, it was suggested that the gathering of crocus flowers by women in autumn, as our iconographic references argue from Thera and Crete, may have been a practice related to the beliefs and festivals at Leska (see this vol., Ch. 6, pp. 125–126). The landscape setting of Mt. Mermigkari would have allowed such an activity, and some of the collected crocus flowers could have been offered to the deity, ensuring the fertility of the land and future harvests. The making of offerings forms an esoteric pact between an individual and the divinity, close to the traditional Greek notion of a tama (τάμα)—that is, a promise made in a religious context—could have extended to a number of activities aside from providing an actual gift or offering. This practice could have involved an act without economic cost but with symbolic significance for the person, like visiting the sanctuary individually and irrespective of festivals, naming a child after the deity, and others. Another such case could have been the practice of fasting during a time that is not obligatory in order to satisfy the deity. Unfortunately, these types of offerings can only be hypothesized, but they should be mentioned as practices that possibly were happening in tandem with the those that produced recoverable finds. A small group of offerings from Leska could be associated with military activities: a pendant in the form of a helmet, a miniature knife blade, and a bronze pin (M1, M3, M4). Although these finds

137

make up a rather small assemblage, they are significant because they add another dimension to the beliefs and practices of the local cult. Furthermore, they provide another link to Hagios Georgios sto Vouno where more evidence of this kind was recovered. Nonetheless, the limited number finds of this type from Leska prevents the proposition that it acted as a site related to the military and/or to age-related rites of passage. It has been well demonstrated by Marcel Mauss that the role of the gift was rather important in ancient societies (1969). This reciprocal form of exchange within the context of a sanctuary enables the formation of close bonds between the individual and the deity, forging a one-on-one relationship (Sakellarakis 2013, 70). The expected gift in return would have been according to the needs and prayers of the individual who visited the sanctuary and placed their offering(s) within the sacred space. Epiphany I have proposed that the exposed bedrock at the very top of Leska had baetylic properties or acted as a “living rock,” as Hitchcock has called them in the context of the Minoan religion (2007, 94; Georgiadis 2016). Baetyls also are known to have been part of the ritual practices of Cyprus and southern Levant (Crooks 2012, 27–28, 40; Andersson 2015, 49; Yasur-Landau 2016, 416). According to certain scholars, baetylic rituals in Minoan religion were associated with ecstasy in order to experience an epiphany (La Rosa 2001, 221; Younger 2009, 43; Peatfiled and Morris 2012, 241); dancing, incense burning, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages, most probably wine, would have enhanced this condition. I am not convinced, however, that ecstasy was a prerequisite for such a ritual practice. Although dancing, incense burning, and drinking alcohol were taking place at some sanctuaries, these actions were not necessarily undertaken in order to attain ecstasy. Often for communication with the deity all that is needed is faith, while the communication can be either esoteric or through the culturally and cult-defined semiotics of how the deity’s presence and expression manifests itself in the natural world. The physical appearance of the deity to an individual worshipper and not to a crowd could have

138

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

been manifested in multiple ways, as the scenes on Minoan gold rings seem to suggest (Marinatos 1993, 243; 2010, 81; Cain 2001, 35–36, figs 9, 11, 13). Thus, the deity in full form would have been expected to present themselves or their symbolic appearance in other forms such as birds, butterflies, or dragonflies to be seen (Nilsson 1950, 330–388; Warren 1988, 16, 18, 32–34; Marinatos 1993, 174–175; Younger 2009, 44–46, 49, figs 4.2–4.4). The symbols of an eye and/or ear depicted on some of the rings also may suggest that the divinity was seen, heard, and/or perceived in some way by the worshipper. Often the deity’s appearance is closely related to the sky as a vision, animal, or insect. At Leska, powerful winds that can physically affect movement are experienced, and they would have demonstrated the strength of the deity. At the same time, the wind amplified sounds that could have been considered vocal communication from the deity. Furthermore, fog and clouds provided limited visibility, the experience of which could have been considered a close interaction wherein the worshipper is engulfed by the divinity. Cloud forms also could have been perceived as messages interpreted according to the worshipper’s needs. The position and proximity of the mountain in relation to the Mylopotamos plain allowed “voices” and sounds from the valley to be heard on the summit during certain weather conditions. Animals, birds, and insects would have been found in the area of the sanctuary, and their presence could have been interpreted according to the local cultic ethos. Thus, the worshipper could have experienced a multisensory variety of epiphanies that could include visual, acoustic, and/or sensual facets. Unlike feasting, which has a clear communal character, epiphany is a personal experience, more esoteric, which leads to one-to-one communication with the deity. Taboos Taboo is a difficult subject, rare in archaeological research on prehistoric religion and discussed only when relevant texts are available (Milner 2011, 112). It is very interesting to note, however, that taboos are commonly related with restrictions in the consumption of specific fauna (Frazer 1996, 287; Milner 2011, 109). The lack of bones and fire at Leska means that no sacrifices of wild or domesticated animals were performed in the sanctuary, and that this type of ritual was not related to the local

beliefs and practices. Moreover, the avoidance of anthropogenic intervention, like the light of fire, within the space of the sanctuary emphasized the natural character of the sacred locale. These observations are very strange when considering that the location of the sanctuary is within a mountainous landscape that would have served as an ideal pastoral and hunting area. The lack of animal bones cannot be related to poverty in this case but rather to a conscious decision related to the local beliefs. The unbounded space of the sanctuary indicates that the surrounding nature, being the focal point of the local cult, was not restricted, but rather existed as it did in the rest of its surrounding landscape. Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, however, produced a small amount of various types of animal bones, primarily caprids, and evidence for fire (Sakellarakis 2011; Trantalidou 2013, 475–478). However, the peak sanctuaries of Atsipades and Vrysinas in Central-West Crete provide evidence similar to that of Leska (Peatfield 1990; Tzachili 2016). It seems that there were at least two sets of practices, which may have been related with the deity(-ies) worshipped at a particular sanctuary and their particular character or associated rituals. Based on the symbolism related to the specific forms of taboo, one could conclude that there is a purposeful emphasis on two aspects at Leska. The first is the preservation of the physical landscape, suggesting that the fertility of the land was a primary concern, with an emphasis on fauna, preventing the killing/sacrifice of domestic and wild animals. The second is the importance of liquids in the form of libations as a central offering against the element of fire, which was perhaps reserved as something only coming from the deity(-ies). It is possible that performing libations and/or visiting this sanctuary was seen as a form of purification, for which the killing of an animal was forbidden. Therefore, libations should not be related to animal sacrifice or considered to have cleansed people from such past acts. This taboo appears to have been a characteristic specific to this peak sanctuary, and its restrictions were valid only within its locale. Cretan parallels to this taboo argue that it was part of a broader tradition in the southern Aegean, raising the possibility that other types existed in expression and form within Aegean sacred beliefs and practices.

R I T U A L S , C U LT, A N D B E L I E F S

Magic In this section, I would like to emphasize that some of the finds suggest that particular rituals were not regularly/periodically or commonly performed. Rather, they were used in specialized rituals for asking specific favors, which are closer to magic rather than mainstream cult. Stones and/or pebbles on peak sanctuaries may have symbolized water (Chryssoulaki 2001, 63), and in particular rain (Soetens 2009, 265). In Classical Greece, many specific types of stones were also related to Zeus and the use of magic in order to avert danger or invoke his help; especially stones resembling water also could provoke rain to fall (Plin. Nat. hist. 37.115, 124; Farnell 1896, 44–45; Cook 1940, 311, 876, 887, 890–891, 921). The pebbles from Leska derive from a stream environment rather than the sea or springs as proposed by other scholars (Chryssoulaki 2001, 63; Soetens 2009, 265). For Renfrew the deposit of pebbles in sanctuaries at Dhaskalio Kavos, Keros, and later in Cretan peak sanctuaries is a common ritual element (2010, 290). Their dispersal within the sanctuary at Leska is rather wide and thin, arguing against their identification as a means to demarcate space. Furthermore, their relatively small number (36) is too low to propose that they marked the presence of worshippers at the site. The symbolic link between river pebbles and rain is strengthened by the fact that the specific examples at Leska come from a stream, some of the aforementioned ritual practices connect stones and rain, and Soetens’ hypothesis relating rainfall to pebbles all strengthen the symbolic link between river pebbles and rain (2009, 265). Thus, it is proposed here that these items were collected from the streams and brought to the sanctuary in order to provoke rainfall, most probably during an extended period of drought, as an act of a heterotopia. The pebbles acted as a metaphor for raindrops, and in a symbolic synecdoche, more broadly rainfall. This proposed interpretation could also explain the low number of these objects in the sanctuary. In this framework, the clay balls could have been seen as imitating the shape and symbolic meaning of the stream pebbles and thus to have been used as substitutes in magic rituals. This hypothesis can be inferred from the similarities in shape and size that exist between the recovered examples.

139

Pieces of chert known as cerauniae (“thunderstones”) in the Greek and Roman world also have been associated with deities, rituals, and sacrifice (Cook 1904, 364–365; Dietrich 1988, 35; Frazer 1996, 93). The pieces of unworked chert recovered at Leska represent a small assemblage of nine examples. I think that these pieces of chert have the same symbolic meaning as later cerauniae— that is, they were considered the remains of thunderbolts. This identification has a practical basis, since striking chert pieces together or with iron pyrite can create fire (Plin. HN 7.199; Matzanas 2000, 43, 45–46). Thus, they were strongly symbolically connected with fire, lighting, and the sky. Bringing these objects to the sanctuary would have been an act of evoking clouds, lighting, and rainfall. The lack of evidence for fires at Leska argues against the potential recognition of the chert pieces as fire enhancers and emphasizes their symbolic character. Thus, by bringing these pieces of chert, a reoccurrence of the deity’s epiphany as a thunderbolt was asked for symbolically, in order to bring rain as well. Prayers for thunderbolts as part of the magic rituals asking for rain, as Pliny informs (HN 2.140), could have taken place on the baetyl as another form of epiphany. Both pebbles and pieces of chert are identifiable and distinct objects within their surroundings. They are connected to and part of their lithic and geological environment, but they are not attached to it. Taking them out of their original location does not cause any discontinuity in their place of origin (Gibson 1979, 93); instead, they are redeposited in a different location, retaining their attributed qualities and symbolic meanings, reestablishing their connection with their new location and thus forming symbolic links of heterotopia. In Chapter 6, I describe the various possible paths followed by pilgrims during the Minoan period (see this vol., pp. 122–123). Following paths 1 and 2a, people passed through streambeds in the northwestern part of the Mylopotamos valley, where the pebbles could have been collected. If one ascends Mt. Mermigkari from pathways 2b and 3, no streambeds are attested, while the local geology is a mixture of limestone and chert exposed in the lower parts of the mountain. Numerous pieces of chert are visible and accessible on the ground, something that dramatically changes on the higher

140

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

slopes of the limestone mountain where chert is absent. Hence, the different types of stones are related to the paths that the pilgrims followed and their landscape characteristics. By bringing the lowland landscape to the mountain summit, first a blessing was sought by symbolically transferring the plain closer to the deity. Thus, the mountain top was the liminal location where everyday lowland life met, symbolically and physically, as far as the participants were concerned, the sky and its deity. Second, there would have been a request for rainfall through a magic ritual that included the transfer of these items, along with the clay balls, to the sanctuary. These objects symbolize elements of weather: the rain that fed the streams and rounded the stones to pebbles, and their clay imitations, which contained water, as well as the thunderbolts that the chert seems to represent. The semi-arid conditions that existed on Kythera would have caused periodic drought on the island every few years, conditions that would have affected dramatically the annual crop production and basic subsistence of the population. Rain rituals are proposed to have taken place by other scholars like Rutkowski, who argues that they were related to the goddess’ husband— that is, a male divinity (1986, 82, 114). In the case of Leska, some of the recovered finds suggest the way this ritual and ceremony was practiced locally.

A Chthonic Dimension The iconographic representation of schematic snakes in the form of handles or as plastic decorations on the bodies of vases is observed at Leska. The form of the snake has been associated closely with chthonic beliefs in a household context expressed at both private and public/palatial sites (Evans 1921–1935, IV, 152–154, 160; Nilsson 1950, 321, 323–325, 329). Perhaps in Crete a protective and fertility aspect is associated with their representation. This element may be the link for understanding their presence at peak sanctuaries (Peatfiled 1990, 122, 125–126; 1992, 61, 79; Rutkowski 1991, 53, 56–57; Watrous 1996, 89). Actual snake figurines at peak sanctuaries in Crete are rare, recovered at MM IB–III Juktas and perhaps at Petsophas; at MM IB–III Vrysinas, it is found as plastic decoration on vessels (Karetsou 1975, 335, pl. 264:δ; 1978, 248, 256, pl. 170:α; Jones 1999, pl. 3;

Kyriakidis 2005a, table 21, fig. 43; Viglaki and Daskalakis 2016, 236–237, 258–259, pl. 76). Floating snakes are also found on Minoan gold rings, mainly in epiphany scenes, and they have been interpreted as constellations (Kyriakidis 2005b 140–142). However, it equally could have been the objects on which the depictions appear that were seen and considered symbolically significant during an epiphany. On Kythera, snakes are seen as plastic decorations on open vases of various shapes. At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, this combination is attested in only a few occasions on cups and rhyta (Tournavitou 2014, 83, 113–114). At Leska, they are found on vessels of the same types also deposited at the sanctuary as offerings. At Vrysinas, based on the position of the plastic snake decoration on the pots it has been proposed that they are metaphorically represented as if drinking from the vessel (Viglaki and Daskalakis 2016, 261). In local Kytheran clay production, snakes adorned vases of everyday use such as cups and also specialized forms like the rhyta, adding to their symbolic importance. They are more related to liquid consumption and pouring activities, suggesting libation rituals perhaps associated with fertility. For Leska, the chthonic dimension may be one more link, symbolically interconnecting the peak sanctuary with the rituals and beliefs practiced at the Katafygadi Cave and/or the funerary practices more broadly attested on Mt. Mermigkari.

Cult Funerary Tradition and Peak Sanctuaries It is interesting to note that both peak sanctuaries at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and Leska were established during the Protopalatial period (MM IB–II). It is unfortunate that at both sites the finds are limited in quantity, but they seem similar in character and use, as discussed above. In the same phase, the burial evidence from Kythera is rather limited and of uncertain date (Preston 2007, 248– 249). This situation changed considerably in the Neopalatial period (MM III–LM I), however, when there is a divergence on the shapes deposited at the two peak sanctuaries.

R I T U A L S , C U LT, A N D B E L I E F S

Also in the Neopalatial phase a new burial tradition was introduced: chamber tombs appeared, which have a communal character in contrast to previous traditions focusing on the individual. This practice is thought to be Knossian in origin, especially the multi-chamber version, which became popular on Kythera as well (Preston 2007, 249). This hypothesis is supported by the close relationship between Kythera and Knossos, as the pottery tradition suggests. A number of single-chambered tombs have also been noted, especially in the central-eastern part of the island, also possibly attributed to the Neopalatial period (Preston 2007, 248, fig. 3). A similar Neopalatial tradition of multichamber tombs also appeared on Antikythera, however, but on this island the main pottery influence was from western Crete rather than the central part of the island (Pentedeka et al. 2010; Bevan and Conolly 2013, 66, 132). Nevertheless, it can be proposed that there is not necessarily a link between the burial type and the area that influenced the local pottery. Kythera and Antikythera share the multi-chamber tomb tradition, possibly influenced by Knossian prototypes, but the local pottery shows affinities with different areas of Crete. Moreover, the expenditure of resources required for the construction of the new tombs suggests new socioeconomic conditions on Neopalatial Kythera (Preston 2007, 249). Burials became more elaborate and visible than ever before, not only at Kastri but throughout the insular landscape of Kythera and the wider surrounding area. As the sites on Mt. Mermigkari reveal, the world of the living and the world of the dead coexisted and were closely interrelated on Kythera. More complex rituals and beliefs seem to have developed during the Neopalatial phase in both contexts, sanctuaries and burials. Leska is located more than 10.00 km west of both Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and the Kastri tombs. The similarities between the pottery types at Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno are easy to envisage because both sites are recognized as peak sanctuaries, and to a certain degree analogous rituals are expected to have been performed. However, shared elements with the new funerary tradition exemplified at Kastri need further analysis. Apart from relatively common shapes that are shared between the sanctuaries and the tombs,

141

there is a particular shape, the ring-handled basin, which is found mainly in funerary contexts. The fact that it is also recovered at Leska is a peculiarity that addresses the question of their relationship. Moreover, there seems to be a common use of skeuomorphic shapes in both the chamber tombs (Bevan et al. 2002, 93; Preston 2007, 250) and at Leska, further highlighting this issue. The peak sanctuary at Leska is located within a wider sacred landscape, as mentioned above (see this vol., Ch. 6, pp. 118–120). This environment is dominated by a funerary character, as exemplified by the Lazarianika pithos burial, additional possible burials on Mt. Mermigkari, and the Neopalatial deposit with human bones in the Katafygadi Cave. However, it is maintained here that at Mt. Mermigkari the funerary practices were different in comparison to the Kastri examples. In the Neopalatial period on Kythera, there is a divergence in the types of offerings deposited in the funerary tradition and those at the Hagios Georgios sto Vouno peak sanctuary. Both contexts are ritually charged, but they have distinct characters, which is well demonstrated in the material remains. The predominance of conical cups and all other forms of cups at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno should be considered on its own, as well as in association with tripod cooking pots. In other words, conical cups must have been used for various different activities including drinking, eating, and pouring libations. In the Kastri tombs there is a preference for open vessels and low-necked jugs, and a lack of tripod cooking vessels, trays, basins, large containers (pithoi), and animal bones is observed. Thus, it is proposed that the funerary rituals were concentrated on drinking rather than food consumption (Preston 2007, 252, table 2). This preference is the most important divergence between tombs and peak sanctuaries. In the latter, open vessels and jugs are equally popular, but the same applies to the cooking vases. The frequent presence of cooking vessels at both Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and Leska emphasize the importance of consuming food as part of the rituals performed at these sites. Food may have been offered to the funerary participants after the conclusion of the burial at the habitation area. After all, cemeteries were located quite close to the settlements, but these feasts/meals were not part of the rituals that were taking place at the

142

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

burial ground, and thus they had less symbolic, if any, importance. Possibly they had more of a socioeconomic role—that is, strengthening the bonds of the local society after the loss of one of its members and/or displaying the status of the deceased and his family or kin. Nevertheless, there is a clear distinction in the in situ consumption of food, strongly suggesting a difference in the performed rituals and the symbolic role of feasting at tombs and sanctuaries on Neopalatial Kythera. There are important similarities in pottery syntax between the Kastri tombs and Leska. They seem to suggest that there were also some shared ritual activities taking place in both contexts. Furthermore, the presence of the Lazarianika burial and the chthonic rituals that were possibly conducted at the Katafygadi Cave emphasize the significance of death in the beliefs of Neopalatial Kytherans at sites very close to Leska. The relationship between Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and the Kastri tombs is close, but it is perhaps not as evident as in the case of Leska. Nonetheless, there might be something more connecting this peak sanctuary with cave sites of chthonic character, as the presence of speleothems seem to highlight. During the Neopalatial period, a close interrelationship appears to have developed between burials and peak sanctuaries, thus entailing a significant degree of common rituals and practices. Their physical relationship is also equally important, either in the form of heterotopia—that is, bringing parts of the cave environment to a peak sanctuary—or in proximity, visibility, and possible visits directly between the Katafygadi Cave and Leska. The same already has been observed at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, where speleothems were offered. This relationship between peak sanctuaries and burials does not reveal the existence of common beliefs or a shared divinity, but rather it emphasizes that there were certain shared elements expressed in rituals. There seems to be a strong communal character in all of these ritual contexts, suggesting that there was a shared symbolic template focused on the fertility of the land. This realization is an important one regarding the ritual activities practiced on the island, and equally for the way Kytheran culture was formed during this period. This latter point suggests that a certain cultural maturity was reached and an idiosyncratic cultural character appeared, despite the continuation and intensification of cultural interaction with Neopalatial Crete.

Divinity(-ies) Searching for the divinity of a sanctuary was among the main concerns of early archaeologists. In the last decades, it has been considered either passé or not a primary research question worth pursuing in Aegean prehistoric religious studies. Only recently in Minoan religious studies the quest for the names and/or attributes of deities has become a more relevant research question (Moss 2005; Marinatos 2010). A male weather god and a multiplicity of deities have been proposed based on the differences attested between peak sanctuaries in Crete (Marinatos 1993, 119, 147; Watrous 1995, 399–400, 402). This hypothesis appears to have been strengthened as variations between examples of this type of sanctuary became clearer (Jones 1999; Kyriakidis 2005a). Especially at the peak sanctuaries Moss recognized several divinities, among which sky deities appear to be the most common, such as a solar or sky god, a stellar goddess, a guardian of the sun, and a bird goddess (Moss 2005, 114). However, an unexpected source is the case of the single Linear A inscription on a Neopalatial stone lamp recovered at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, which can be read as da-ma-te (Sakellarakis and Olivier 1994, 345, 348; Banou 2012, 386, 408, pl. 246). It has been proposed that Damater is the equivalent of classical Demeter, a deity with Minoan origins (Sakellarakis and Olivier 1994, 349, 351; Sakellarakis 2013, 132–133), but philological reservations exist regarding this reading (Chadwick 1957, 124; Ruipérez and Melena 1996, 236– 238; Bendall 2007, 67). Artemis Karnava proposes a compromise in which this name relates a theonym with a toponym, claiming that Damater is the name of a deity that a settlement on Kythera was named after, in an analogy of the goddess Athena and Athens (2016, 351–352). Thus, the name of one deity may be known from the peak sanctuary at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. The movement of the sun, the mountainous landscape, the weather elements on the summit, the importance attributed to rain and water, and the baetyl point toward a male weather deity. Diwos is the name of Zeus found in the Linear B tablets, and already in the texts of this period it appears as a common and important deity. It is assumed that it was a sky divinity including most meteorological aspects, possibly with the addition of the sun (Ventris

R I T U A L S , C U LT, A N D B E L I E F S

and Chadwick 1973, 125–128; Ruipérez and Melena 1996, 236). Therefore, if the above hypothesis is valid, it can be proposed that Diwos was a Proto-Zeus, an early form of sky deity with the same broad attributes as the Classical Zeus. This sky divinity would have had the power to move clouds, form powerful winds, and cause rain and thunderbolts. Spears or bows could have been an alternative depiction of these phenomena in Aegean iconography, with arrows symbolizing the thunderbolts and chert being the spear-/arrowheads. Interestingly, there are iconographic references associating a probable male deity with these weapons in epiphanic scenes (Marinatos 2010, 172, 181–183). The limited finds from Leska that suggest a military aspect in the local cult also can be connected to a warrior deity. Diwos or a Proto-Zeus could incorporate both dimensions of a sky and warrior god.

Beliefs Understanding the beliefs related to divinities and the local myths is difficult in any ancient society. The lack of texts and iconographic references from contemporary Kythera makes this task almost impossible. Thus, some tentative speculations and hypotheses will be proposed below. Everyday activities and communal, symbolically related events in preindustrial societies were commonly correlated with agricultural and animal migration cycles (Barrett 1999, 253). Adding to that a pastoral dimension, at least in the case of Mt. Mermigkari, these activities would form a template where life, death, and regeneration were highly important and symbolically meaningful in day-to-day life, social and economic relationships, and religious beliefs and practices. It could be proposed that, at least during the Neopalatial period, the Katafygadi Cave and Leska functioned autonomously and at the same time were complementary to each other. This possibly applies not only to the symbolic significance of the sanctuaries but also to the ritual practices that were taking place. Furthermore, the close proximity of the two sacred sites and the common pathways that provided access to worshippers emphasize their close interrelationship. The first cave

143

site would symbolize death and the sanctuary the regeneration of nature, both of which would be demonstrated by visiting and attending rituals at the two sanctuaries. The annual physical experience of the worshippers in these two sites could have embodied a religious narrative of the cycle of life in a mountainous extra-settlement location: death and the underworld is experienced by individuals in a cave environment with human remains, and regeneration and the celebration of life is experienced through feasting at the closest point of the earth to the sky and the god(s). It is possible that the practices at both sites, more clearly at Leska, included an epiphany with the divine. The liminal character of a mountain summit makes it easy for the worshippers to envisage being physically closer to the deities residing in the heavens/ sky. This way of evoking the presence of the divinity is closely associated symbolically with fertility and protection (Warren 1988, 34–35). The central role of fertility is proposed to be the aim of rituals such as libations and the invocation of rain (Peatfield 1995, 227). Leska appears to be very much integrated in a cultic landscape that included sanctuaries with various symbolic configurations close in proximity but at the same time far away. Although the correlations between Leska and the other sites are not of the same character, they provide a vivid image of the complexity of religious practices on Neopalatial Kythera. From the cases known to us, it would seem that the common and primary theme of Kytheran religious beliefs is the fertility of the land rather than that of animals or the well-being of humans. There is no divergence from the Minoan religion, where the same theme is attested, but on Kythera it is dominant. Death and the underworld through caves and burials appear also to have a special significance, balanced by the cults of the peak sanctuaries, which is expected to be associated with life-giving forces/deities. On these grounds it could be proposed that in the agricultural insular society of Neopalatial Kythera, a specialized, if somewhat idiosyncratic cult tradition was developed within the broader Minoan, or even Aegean religious framework, where fertility through the annual cycle of nature was emphasized symbolically in the different sanctuaries—that is, life, death, and regeneration.

144

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Metaphors From the available material culture of Kythera, the metaphor seems to be a concept that is closely associated with ritual sites. It is a common syntactical element through which symbolic messages are conveyed in different ritual contexts (i.e., burials and sanctuaries), as discussed above. The beliefs or meanings expressed through metaphor were not always or necessarily the same, but rather depended on the context and the occasion. Some broader categories of metaphor can be identified, such as those with a strong spatial dimension. The chamber tomb can be seen as a metaphor for a tradition coming from the Knossos area, connecting the two areas symbolically and ideologically as far as the burial practices were concerned. This type of tomb also could be associated with the symbolic importance of caves and all related underworld beliefs, which was translated into a manmade form. The human bones at the Katafygadi Cave also can be seen as a metaphor in the same way, linking the bones with the concepts mentioned above for the chamber tombs; the human bones also may have been the inspiration for the adoption of this burial type at Kythera. From the use of natural caves or rock shelters for burials, they adopted the construction of small chambers. The closed underground space of the cave and its symbolic meanings can be seen as another spatial metaphor, as parts of it (speleothems) were deposited as offerings at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno. The same role has been attributed to the pebbles and pieces of chert from the lower slopes of Mt. Mermigkari that were brought to and deposited at Leska. Metaphors also can be seen in the symbolic images of living things, like humans and animals in clay or metal figurines. A metaphor of scale is attested in the representation of buildings, landscapes, and everyday items into small clay figurines, as well as in large ceramic vessels in miniature

form. Metaphors for different materials are evident in the cases of skeuomorphism (see above, pp. 84– 85), when the same shapes are produced in different materials. Metaphors are represented in the employment of religious symbols from Crete, such as the horns of consecration and the double axe and all the meanings that they convey. The ritual of epiphany proposed to have taken place at Leska also could be considered a metaphor for contact and communication with the deity. All these elements point toward a broader meaning and the use of metaphor in emphasizing the life, death, and regeneration of nature through rituals, cultic activities, and beliefs (see above, p. 143). The role of metaphor appears to be central in the transmission of these messages, which are symbolically meaningful only in the local context. This Kytheran cultic context encompasses the idiosyncrasies found in beliefs and in the local material culture. Although metaphors are shared in many contemporary symbolic frameworks in Crete and other parts of the Aegean, not all have the same character. Despite the fact that some have been adopted from Crete with the same or altered symbolic meanings, the overall message of the identified metaphors is particular to Kythera: the combination of the metaphors attested appears to be unique and meaningful only to this island. This circumstance suggests that there were important local processes underway that selected and formed these symbolic meanings, which served different social, economic, cultural, and cultic conditions, and also perhaps political motivations from Crete or elsewhere. Thus, it is proposed on Kythera there was no cultural or cultic Cretan transplant per se, but rather an eclectic selection of meanings and symbols that were adopted, often altered, and even manipulated in some cases, in order to serve local sociocultural needs.

8

Comparisons and Synthesis

Minoanization and the Local Culture An underlying theme throughout this work is the degree and character of Minoanization that took place on Kythera. Although this issue is broad, concerning a large part of the Aegean, we will concentrate on Kythera in particular, and parallels will be sought only from other contemporary sites. Kythera, and in particular Kastri, is the only widely accepted Cretan colony in the Aegean. This circumstance is also substantiated by the finds from KIP and analyses by different scholars (Kiriatzi 2003; Broodbank 2004, 49; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007; Niemeier 2009, 14–15). Sakellarakis identified Hagios Georgios sto Vouno as a Minoan peak sanctuary and saw it as a Cretan religious transplant, which confirmed the colonial character of the island (2013, 138, 146). He even suggested that the peak sanctuary was a religious dependency of Knossos from which propaganda was dispersed (Sakellarakis 2013, 153).

However, Cyprian Broodbank’s main narrative suggested the existence of a mixed population of locals and Cretan immigrants from the latter part of the 3rd millennium b.c., with more Cretans perhaps coming during the Neopalatial period, but no direct politico-economic control from the Cretan palaces was proposed (2004, 75–81). Newcomers must have come to the island, especially in the Kastri area, but the character, intensity, and date of this event(s) is unclear. During the Neopalatial period, there was an increase in the settlement size of Kastri, many peripheral sites appeared around it, and a possibly unprecedented number of settlements were scattered throughout the island. There is a general population increase, which could support the migration of people from outside the island, an increase in the local population, and the intra-island movement of people. A Cretan origin has been proposed for the newcomers, which is based on the similarities in material culture between the two islands. The Minoan culture was the dominant but not necessarily only influence. Furthermore, a close relationship

146

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

between Kythera and Central Crete was proposed due to the early introduction of the chamber tomb and the similarities in the shapes, fabrics, technology, and decoration of pottery. Parallels between the richness of Mt. Juktas and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno have been put forth, and I have proposed the same for the complex religious landscapes of Mt. Juktas and Mt. Mermigkari (see this vol., pp. 119– 120). Furthermore, the cultic use of caves, such as Katafygadi and possibly Hagia Sofia on Kythera, is close to the trend of sacred caves in Crete. The same applies to the interrelation of a peak sanctuary with a burial ground, like in the case of Mt. Mermigkari. The last two points appeared to be primarily Central Cretan phenomena, possibly earlier in date than Neopalatial. Although the Knossos-Kastri relationship has been highlighted primarily due to shared burial traditions, the hypothesized sociopolitical link is losing its appeal. The popularity of the chamber tomb across Kythera has a quite different pattern of use than at Knossos, strongly suggesting different internal social, cultural, and cultic processes. Even if this trend were attributed to the effect of Kastri as a cultural and sociopolitical center on the rest of the island, the chamber tombs at Antikythera would seriously question such a hypothesis. On this small island, the use of a central chamber tomb cemetery serving the dispersed settlements of the entire island is a sui generis development. Furthermore, an Antikythera-Knossos relationship, even between elites, seems a rather weak suggestion. The rather small size of Antikythera makes questionable the extent to which social differentiation, or even local elites, existed on the island. Ideas about Kytheran cultural and/or sociopolitical predominance over Antikythera cannot be sustained either, because the pottery tradition of the small island has a stronger local and West Cretan character (Pentedeka et al. 2010). Thus, the original Knossos-Kastri schema needs a reevaluation in the light of new evidence in this region. Nevertheless, there are equally important elements that demonstrate important differences between Crete and Kastri, and we also should bear in mind that geographically the closest Cretan region to Kythera, West Crete, is poorly known during this period. For example, the settlement pattern that developed on Neopalatial Kythera is unique to the island, not following central Cretan models. The

popularity of skeuomorphism and miniaturization in different media, the presence of pithos burials, and the case of the Katafygadi Cave are unique Kytherian elements. The same can be said also for the limited use or absence of human and animal figurines in the peak sanctuaries of this island. It has been argued convincingly that Kastri was a Minoan colony, but a similar supposition cannot be definitively made for Kythera as a whole. Kytherian culture and its idiosyncracies during the Neopalatial phase argue in favor of an amalgam of local developments and diverse cultural influences from Crete. The latter provided new forms, but their use and transmitted messages were different in accordance with Kytheran social, economic, political, and religious conditions. Thus, there seems to have been a conscious selection of certain elements that either fit into or could become meaningful in local culture, as they did in Crete or in an entirely different manner. It therefore seems that the hypothesis of the ideological or cosmological predominance of Knossos over Crete (Soles 1995, 413–414; Knappett and Schoep 2000, 365), which is proposed to have extended to Kythera, especially for the local elite (Broodbank 2004, 81), could explain better the case of Kythera. In this way, Central Cretan influence can be explained by certain aspects such as the popularity of chamber tombs, the presence of Linear A inscriptions, and the existence of sacred caves; while at the same time, this influence would allow local characteristics and idiosyncrasies to develop. However, no direct social, economic, or political control or influence could have been exercised from Knossos or any other part of Crete, in opposition to earlier hypotheses (Branigan 1981, 26, 32). The case of western Kythera and Mt. Mermigkari in particular, in my opinion, reveal the presence of a local social substratum, possibly already amalgamated into or made compatible with Cretan cultural influence. In either case, this substratum served the regional population in its social, political, economic, religious, and ideological needs, which were different to those of eastern Kythera and possibly elsewhere. The employment of Minoan forms and shapes in the material culture has blurred the identification of localized practices and traditions. Thus, assessing Kytherian culture is a rather difficult task. Seeking non-Cretan elements should become part of the discourse on Minoan Kythera, however, based on the evidence from Mt. Mermigkari.

C O M PA R I S O N S A N D S Y N T H E S I S

Overall, some useful conclusions can be drawn from Leska, and more specific questions can be formed for future research.

Kytherian vs. Cretan Peak Sanctuaries The two peak sanctuaries located on Kythera were established during the Protopalatial period, as were the majority of Cretan examples. During the Neopalatial phase, however, not only did they survive, but they grew larger in both size and importance. Thus, no decrease in numbers, “centralization,” or “nucleation” of peak sanctuaries is evident on Kythera, unlike the image from Crete. Although Kytherian peak sanctuaries fall within the temporal framework of the Cretan examples, there is clear divergence in the diachronic development of their peak sanctuaries, which is emphasized by their unusual longevity, since both were active continuously at least until the LM IB phase. The topographical characteristics of Kytherian peak sanctuaries, however, are totally compatible with Cretan cases in the sense of location, visibility, and proximity to settlements. The same applies to intervisibility: in the case of Kythera it can be proposed that the intervisibility between Leska and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno had a specific, obvious symbolic meaning, connecting the two sites. Similar parallels exist in eastern Crete (see this vol., Ch. 6, p. 125). Even the more complex religious landscape of a holy mountain at Mermigkari finds parallels at Mt. Juktas, though of quite different scale and wealth. Systems of multiple pathways like those leading to and from Leska are thought to exist in other peak sanctuaries in Crete as well. A focal point in the sanctuary as is proposed for the bedrock at Leska is also attested in Cretan examples in different forms. A similar picture is also formed from the material remains recovered at the peak sanctuaries on Kythera. Broadly, the same categories and types of pottery, stone tools, small finds, and metals have been found. At Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, bones and fire remains have been attested, while walls were erected as well, in accordance with other cases in Crete. The only important difference between

147

Crete and Kythera in the material record was the use of figurines at Neopalatial Kytherian peak sanctuaries. On Crete, figurines were especially popular in the Protopalatial phase and present but less common during the Neopalatial period. Despite the unprecedented number of bronze figurines found at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, the overall number of figurines in all media, especially those in clay, was low for the size and longevity of this peak sanctuary. Still, less popular figurines such as the horns of consecration and architectural models have been recovered in some Cretan sanctuaries (F2–F5). The idiosyncrasy in figurines cannot be explained easily according to the available Cretan evidence, and more importantly to the criteria that have been set. The argument of Kythera being an offshoot of the main Cretan peak sanctuary tradition is rather weak after analyzing the common elements of chronology, topography, and material remains shared between the two islands. Now is a good opportunity to address issues of other traditions and practices parallel or alternative to the main paradigm constructed by scholars for Cretan peak sanctuaries. It is not the paucity of finds from these sites that prevent better research results but rather the prevailing methodology that limits analytical capabilities. Sites that potentially could be peak sanctuaries should be more thoroughly studied rather than dismissed soley because no figurines were recovered on the surface during survey or even during excavation. The Hagiofarango valley sites in the Mesara and Drapanokefalo in West Crete are some examples. More attention and analysis should focus on southern Greek examples as well, such as those at Troullos hill on Kea, Mt. Lykaion on the Elian-Messenian-Arcadian border, and the less likely example of Mt. Filerimos on Rhodes. In these sanctuaries, no pre-Mycenaean figurines have been reported, with the exception of the Troullos hill (see this vol., Ch. 1, p. 14). Perhaps it is time for the entire discourse of Cretan peak sanctuaries to be broadened to encompass Kythera as much as the rest of the Aegean islands and contemporary southern Greece. Similar peak sanctuary examples from a wider geographical area will allow the tracing of variations, similarities, differences, analogies, divergences, parallel traditions, regionalisms, and idiosyncrasies. In the peak sanctuaries of both Kythera and Crete there was an emphasis on feasting. Two types of feasting practices have been observed at these

148

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

sites. The first is associated with fires that were lit within the area of the sanctuary and animal sacrifices that were performed as part of the feast. At the peak sanctuaries of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and Juktas, these activities have been identified. The second type does not include either of these practices: in these cases, libations appear to have been central to the rituals. Evidence for libations can be seen at Protopalatial Atsipades, Protopalatial–MM III Vrysinas, and Leska. This lack of evidence for fire and animal consumption may be connected to a taboo related to this practice, something also associated with the veneration of specific deity(-ies) in classical Greece (Guettel Cole 2007, 281). Additionally, a hypothesis that separates peak sanctuaries into wealthier and poorer based on the consumption of meat cannot be sustained as a hypothesis, as the mountainous landscape ensured rich pastoral ground from which animals could have been used for sacrifice. Furthermore, hunted animals also could have been consumed locally, but no such remains have been recovered. The lack of fire is strange, however, considering that there was consumption of food from cooking vessels brought to the sanctuary. Kythera provides a useful example of peak sanctuaries operating on two levels, one regional and one local. The regional tradition is based on the common characteristics shared by the two Kytherian sanctuaries and the two main elements that differentiated them from Cretan examples. The first is their diachronic development and longevity, as outlined above (see this vol., p. 147), which is unlike Cretan examples. The second is the rather limited occurrence of figurines, which, however, may have been a wider phenomenon, at least during the Neopalatial phase. In the local tradition, despite the numerous similarities between the Kytherian peak sanctuaries, there were differences in ritual practices, possibly also in beliefs, and in deities worshipped, as well as in the sociopolitical conditions they served. Thus, more thorough studies of Kytherian sanctuaries would provide better con­ texts wherein important variations and individualities are visible characteristics. They could enable the formation of a template of questions that could address and enrich Cretan cases, aiming at a better understanding of the traditions attested in different parts of Crete, Kythera, and perhaps the wider Aegean.

The Katafygadi Cave adds one more important insight into the idiosyncratic practices and beliefs attested on Kythera, dynamically emphasizing the degree of divergence from contemporary Crete. It also demonstrates that other potential sacred caves, especially those located in the Aege­an islands, should not be anticipated to be mere transplanted copies of the Cretan tradition. Even if the idea had a Minoan origin, the manner of its development on Kythera was related more with local practices, beliefs, and sociopolitical conditions. The proximity and paths connecting Leska with Katafygadi within the same mountainous landscape argue for an important relationship between the two cultic sites. Furthermore, the presence of stalactites and stalagmites as offerings at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno emphasizes the symbolic relationship of caves and peak sanctuaries on Kythera. This circumstance may have been a regional phenomenon, but a more thorough study of the finds on Cretan peak sanctuaries could elucidate whether it was broad or spatially limited. Other contemporary, potentially cultic caves in the Aegean outside Crete are limited. Their identification as such is usually based on rather limited evidence, like in the LM I Hagia Sofia cave on Kythera, the early Late Bronze Age finds from the Koumelo cave on Rhodes, and the LΒ I material from the Daskalio cave at Kalymnos (Benton 1931–1932, 245; Sampson 1987, 74; Benzi 1993, 275– 281). In these cases, no human bones were reported among the finds in the cave, although most of the research is of limited character. A similar lack of human bones applies to Cretan sacred caves, where the cult was not associated with human remains. The good quality ceramics found in the Hagia Sofia cave, the character of the use of the Katafygadi Cave, and the speleothem offerings at Hagios Georgios sto Vouno support this hypothesis. For the Daskalio cave, there are a few interesting parameters for consideration: its remote location and the quality of finds could indicate a cultic character during LΒ I. However, this circumstance may not have been a direct result of Minoan cultural influence, but a rather a formalization or reinvention of an older tradition. The presence of good quality EB II–III finds from this cave may support its early use as a ritual site. Thus, perhaps one should be cautious in attributing all MB III–LB I changes across the Aegean to direct Cretan influence

C O M PA R I S O N S A N D S Y N T H E S I S

without knowing the local cultural traditions and practices in depth. The closest Cretan peak sanctuary parallel to Leska is Vrysinas. This sanctuary had a number of Protopalatial finds and far more dating to the Neopalatial period (MM III). No structure or walls were built at this site, suggesting limited influence and/or control of a large administrative or settlement area over the sanctuary (Faro 2008, 186–187). The emphasis there was on feasting, and at the same time social differentiation visible through material remains is limited (Faro 2008, 187–188, 192). Vrysinas appears to have served a region with no dominant center wherein the local elites competed, as seen in other peak sanctuaries in Central and East Crete during the Protopalatial period. For Elissa Faro the common Neopalatial elements of the material culture recovered at Vrysinas, from both palatial and extra-settlement sites, have a pan-Cretan character, but local sociopolitical conditions also affected the finds in these sites (2008, 192, 235–236). The latter point would explain for Faro the distinctiveness and variation attested between sanctuaries. These observations fit very well with the available data from Kythera as well, and they could be evoked to support our evidence. However, the role of cult is seriously undermined in this hypothesis, because it is inferred that the same rural characteristics will be shared by all sanctuaries, peak or otherwise, which have similar sociopolitical conditions. Leska and Vrysinas have many common elements, but there are also important differences in the material remains and the performed rituals. Another element at Leska that finds parallels with some Cretan peak sanctuaries (and not including Hagios Georgios sto Vouno) is a relationship with burials—that is, a nearby cemetery and/ or site where the veneration of ancestors was practiced. Such cases include Traostalos, Petsophas, and Juktas, but more research in the vicinities of other peak sanctuaries will reveal how common this phenomenon was. One could argue that for the Cretan examples the location of burials nearby was a practical matter related to the local topography, for example the proximity of a large settlement, such as Zakros, Palaikastro, or Archanes, to a hill or mountain than with a peak sanctuary. At Leska, however, no such central site has been recovered, and the local and regional settlement patterns suggest a dispersed arrangement. This

149

observation emphasizes the interrelation between peak sanctuaries and burial grounds on the slopes of the same hill or mountain had symbolic significance, a dimension not well appreciated so far. The link may even have a different character: in some cases, the proximity and location of burials in the same area where a peak sanctuary is found may suggest intentional proximity. Such a practice, which is proposed for Juktas-Phourni and LeskaLazarianika, could have symbolically ensured the protection of the deity for the deceased in the afterlife. In others, proximity could be related to the veneration of ancestors as part of the local beliefs in a meaningful mythological narrative within the same landscape region, like at Patema-Petsophas and the Katafygadi Cave-Leska. Another interesting case is at Zakros-Traostalos, where the burials are mainly located in the Gorge of the Dead on the southwest slopes of Mt. Traostalos. During the Protopalatial phase, however, all burials were located in the south part of the Gorge rather than on the side of the hill on which the peak sanctuary sits (Hogarth 1900–1901, 142–145; Vavouranakis 2007, 38–39, fig. 2.31, tables 6, 7). This circumstance is in contrast to previous Cretan examples, clearly suggesting that in some instances an association with burials was sought and in oth­ers the opposite was the case. Moreover, a Protopalatial ritual site, the Kalyvomouri bothros, was possibly replaced in the Neopalatial phase by the site of Tis Ouranias to Phrydi on the northern part of the gorge. Both sites were not associated with burials, underlining the above hypothesis about Zakros-Traostalos, but at the same time, they reveal the presence of a possible ancestral or chthonic cult in the close vicinity of a peak sanctuary. All these observations emphasize the role of these particular peak sanctuaries as holy mountains in their regional context, as discussed above (p. 147). The diachronic use of Phourni as a cemetery from the Prepalatial period onward can be seen in this context. Although the lack of Neopalatial burials there is surprising, it can be proposed that the increasing religious importance attributed to Juktas triggered a change in local beliefs. Thus, there could have been a dissolution of the symbolic link between burials and peak sanctuary. In that case, the cemetery could have been intentionally abandoned due to its proximity to the sanctuary, a practice that also can be proposed for the

150

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Protopalatial Gorge of the Dead at Zakros. Both cemetery examples also could have been placed within the framework involving the progressive unimportance attributed to burials during the Protopalatial and Neopalatial phases, as seen in East and parts of Central Crete (Vavouranakis 2007, 161–163, 166–167). Nevertheless, at Knossos there was a new widespread burial tradition developed during the Neopalatial phase, suggesting a divergent trend. At the same time, the more direct control of Knossos over Mt. Juktas has been proposed, supporting the hypothesis of an intentional break of the ties between death and peak sanctuaries in local beliefs. A possible revival in ancestor worship can be seen in some LM IB, if not earlier urban Neopalatial shrines and habitation areas in East and Central Crete where human skulls and bones have been recovered. However, no associations appear to exist between these sites and their contemporary peak sanctuaries. The coexistence of peak sanctuaries and cemeteries or sites dedicated to the veneration of the ancestors or dead begins in Crete already from the Prepalatial period, and in some cases it lasted until the Neopalatial phase. The association between Leska and burials is Neopalatial in date and becomes evident by the similarity of vessel types deposited in the tombs and the ones provided as offerings at the sanctuary. Furthermore, two sanctuaries close to each other and serving the same communities, such as Leska and the Katafygadi Cave, do not have and should not be expected to have common rituals and/or offerings. Especially in such close proximity, two sanctuaries centered around the same deities and rituals would have been pointless. In fact, larger variation should be anticipated. This point is important, and it should be included in the sociopolitical variables discussed earlier (see this vol., pp. 145–147). This circumstance can be seen more clearly in the better excavated sacred sites on Mt. Juktas, where a peak sanctuary, a sacred cave, and a shrine are concentrated, revealing different religious characteristics and practices (Sakellarakis and Sakellarakis 1994, 136–137). The dense concentration of different and most probably interconnected mythological narratives would have formed highly charged cultic landscapes, like the holy mountains discussed above (p. 147).

It becomes apparent that the peak sanctuaries on Kythera, on their own as individual examples and/or together as a regional case, are important elements in the discourse of peak sanctuaries in toto. That the excavations of two peak sanctuaries on Kythera are fully published may be peculiar, but they should not become the template or paradigm against which other examples should be measured. The peak sanctuaries should be used as parallels for comparisons for useful analogies to be drawn. They provide the identification of two significant traits for the generic peak sanctuary type, localism and regionalism. Equally significant for the discourse around peak sanctuaries is the role of both landscape and performed rituals, which should be of primary concern in future research.

Leska: A Final Synopsis The research conducted at the peak sanctuary of Leska on Kythera has provided new insights in the analysis of cult practices during the first half of the 2nd millennium b.c. The analysis of space and the material culture from this site has demonstrated the importance of landscape, rituals, beliefs, and symbolism. The role of the landscape is dynamic, and it was symbolically meaningful in the cult and the beliefs recognized at Leska. Mount Mermigkari is not just a mountain on Kythera, but also the largest, the backbone of the island and at the same time the barometer of weather and ultimately of agricultural fertility for the entire island. For a semiarid island, the lowland area northeast of the mountain was particularly rich in water sources. It is proposed here that this aspect of the landscape was the main reason why Leska was preferred for establishing this peak sanctuary. The visibility of the entire island and Hagios Georgios sto Vouno that it offered must have been an additional advantage. At Mt. Mermigkari, a complex sacred space was formed, which contained, apart from Leska, the Katafygadi Cave and a number of burials in the mountainous landscape (Ill. 2). These sites may have been connected with mythological narratives well known to the local population. This holy

C O M PA R I S O N S A N D S Y N T H E S I S

mountain was visited by pilgrims from lowland parts of the island who ascended to this elevated area, both symbolically and practically. Different processual paths were followed, serving the dispersed population living in the central and western parts of the island. The gathering of these people in one location on special occasions and dates in the annual calendar was important for their religious beliefs as well as for the social bonding of Protopalatial and Neopalatial Kytherans. The pilgrimage was a shared experience among participants, and it could have been individualized according to the paths followed and the sacred sites visited during time spent on the mountain. The peak sanctuary at Leska appears not to have been under the palatial or administrative control of Kastri, unlike Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and Cretan peak sanctuaries during the Neopalatial period, with Vrysinas being a possible exception (Tzachili 2016). Once pilgrims reached the Leska peak, the resulting view could have acted as an axis mundi for the local population (Eliade 1996, 99–100). They would have been able to understand the surrounding geography and the place of the individual in this world. This realization would have been multilevel, including practical and mundane issues in addition to symbolic, social, and religious. A notional vertical separation of the viewshed also would have denoted the position of mortals in relation to deities. The peak acted as a focal point where people could both see and be seen, in a free and interactive version of the panopticon (Foucault 1977, 202). Additionally, this location was considered a transitional, liminal space where humans blended and coexisted with the divine. The area of the sanctuary would have been connected with a mythological event that included a divine epiphany. These beliefs and practices were enhanced by variations in visibility by the weather conditions that affected the peak at Leska. Clouds, thunder, strong winds, and rain altered this locale far more dynamically than others across the island. Thus, access to the sanctuary was not always possible, and the views it offered not always stable, elements that could have been attributed to the willingness and/or actions of the local deity(-ies). The position of Leska allowed clear intervisibility with the peak

151

sanctuaries of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno and possibly Drymonas, as well as with the Katafygadi Cave (Ill. 1). The visible contact with Hagios Georgios sto Vouno may have been more significant because the movement of the sun can be considered a symbolic link. This link could have bonded the deities worshipped at the two sanctuaries, possibly along with a mythological narrative, and also provided dates for common veneration events; spring and autumn have been put forward for such annual occasions. The exposed bedrock at the highest point of the Leska peak and its position at the northern end of the sanctuary space has been proposed as an important religious element. Its meaning in the local mythological story is elusive, but this area may have acted as a medium for communication with the divine. The cavity on the bedrock may have been considered a sign of divine intervention and possibly a result of the character of the venerated deity. The exposed bedrock may have acted as a baetyl, allowing individuals to interact with the divine. Sounds from lowland activities, winds, clouds and their shapes, and the flying of mosquitoes and/or birds (especially during their annual migration cycle) could have been symbolically meaningful signs for the worshippers. These elements would have been interpreted according to local beliefs and cultural semiotics. The individuals seeking an epiphany at Leska would have had an esoteric experience of communicating with the worshipped deity. The material culture recovered at Leska represents the leftovers of the activities that were undertaken by worshippers visiting this sanctuary. Serving, drinking, and eating were the main identified activities. A shared feast bonded the participants of rituals and enabled the social cohesion of a population living in a dispersed manner. The small area of the Leska peak connected people from several locations across Kythera. The lack of fire remains and bones strongly suggest that there was no cooking, no animal sacrifices, and no meat at this site. In a pastoral and more broadly mountainous environment, where wild animals roamed, this is a strange observation. The intentional abstention from eating meat and the absence of lit fires could be considered an indication of the forms of taboo operating within the area of

152

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

the sanctuary. A similar process could be suggested for the ceramic vessels, as they were brought to the peak sanctuary, left there as offerings to the divinity, and never reused. Further, libations were most likely a significant ritual act, with the liquid poured onto the ground perhaps symbolizing the rain. The marble libation table (SV5) emphasizes the practice and significance of this ritual in the sanctuary, symbolizing the request for rain and ultimately ensuring the fertility of the land. The pebbles, pieces of chert, and clay balls underline the fact that the process of pilgrims moving through the paths was not passive, but rather dynamic. The symbolic value of these objects could be associated with the magical evocation of rain in years of extended aridity. The lowland landscape and the need of rain was transported through an act of heterotopia to the top of the mountain, closer to the divinity who would help in the time of need. Pebbles could have been seen as the symbolic outcome of or petrified version of rain. Equally, the pieces of chert could have been considered petrification or the outcome of thunder/lightning. The clay balls also have been called clay pebbles by scholars like Karetsou (2012, 89). All of these categories of material can be seen as skeuomorphs: the pebbles of rain, the clay balls of pebbles and ultimately of rain, and the pieces of chert of thunder. All were related to the sky, the clouds, thunder and its outcome, and rain that comes from the sky, uniting the sky with the earth and bringing life and fertility. The latter appears to be the central cultic theme of the sanctuary, as the libations also suggest, which applied to all living things, flora, fauna, and human alike. A chthonic aspect has been also recognized in the local cult, expressed in the presence of snakes on some ceramic vessels (P58–P60). Additionally, the proximity of Leska to the Katafygadi Cave argues for a cultic dialectic and a connection with a sacred site of chthonic character. The same relationship can be proposed for the burials that existed on Mt. Mermigkari. The similarities between the rituals performed at Leska and broader Kytherian burial practices, as discussed above (pp. 140– 142), emphasize the shared chthonic beliefs and the presence of common ritual activities. A more limited military dimension also can be identified in the local cult practices (M3, M4), which may have been

associated with male rites of passage. Hence, the local deity was symbolically associated with the sky, clouds, rain, regeneration, fertility, and epiphany, and possibly also to a lesser extent with chthonic and military aspects. All these elements argue that the main local deity at Leska must have been a sky deity, most probably a male one, a Diwos. The veneration of more than one divinity locally is another possibility for this sanctuary. Skeuomorphism, miniaturization, heterotopia, performance, and ritual are all elements of a symbolic metaphor and mimesis. Metaphor is not considered here as a linguistic phenomenon but rather as semiotic in the broad expression of beliefs and material culture. The mimesis is not a mere “copypaste” process but rather an imitation and reproduction of similar symbolic activities that entail social, cultic, political, and economic dimensions and meanings. It is like a miniature vessel that shares some but not all of the elements of the larger version, but the similarities still are clear and well recognizable. Metaphors and mimesis were two central, underlying means of conveying political, social, economic, cultural, and cultic messages through material culture to the Kytherian audience. The metaphors especially must have been central to the ways in which beliefs and mythologies were expressed, rituals were performed, and divinities were manifested to the worshippers. The research conducted at Leska has offered new dimensions to the discourse of peak sanctuaries in the Aegean and to early second-millennium b.c. Kythera. This peak sanctuary was poor and small in size as compared to others, and it could be characterized rural in the sense that it did not serve any large settlement but only dispersed rural ones (i.e., farmsteads and hamlets). At the same time, however, it was a complex site conveying many diverse meanings, both on its own and in relation to neighboring sacred sites. This study also has emphasized the interrelated and complex sacred landscape that developed on Kythera during the MM–LM I period. Each sanctuary had its own independent symbolic role but also interacted with and complimented the others, serving various social and cultic needs. Through the excavation at Leska, a multilevel belief system, encompassing various ritual activities and symbolisms, has been identified, which was developed over time, from the Protopalatial period until

C O M PA R I S O N S A N D S Y N T H E S I S

the end of the LM IB phase. Moreover, we have a better appreciation of the social and economic conditions of rural Kythera, and at the same time the role of the peak sanctuary in this context. The dialectic between landscape and cult suggests that it was an important Kytherian cultural element,

153

which was often expressed through metaphors and mimesis in the material culture. Leska played a central role in the social, political, economic, cultural, and ideological processes of western Kythera and was an integral part of the sacred landscape of the entire island.

References

Abbreviations follow the conventions of the American Journal of Archaeology. Adams, E. 2004. “Power and Ritual in Neopalatial Crete: A Regional Comparison,” WorldArch 36, pp. 26–42. Alexandropoulou, I. 2013. “Η κεραμική των ιστορικών χρόνων,” in Sakellarakis, ed., 2013, pp. 1–24. Alexiou, S. 1966. “Ἠ ἀρχαιολογική κίνησης ἐν Κρήτη κατά τό 1966,” CretChron 20, pp. 319–326. Alram-Stern, E., F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner, eds. 2016. Metaphysis: Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean 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 (Aegaeum 39), Leuven. Anderson, B. 1972. “The Geology of Kastri and Its Neighbourhood,” in Coldstream and Huxley, eds., 1972, pp. 29–32. Andersson, A. 2015. “Thoughts on Material Expressions of Cultic Practice: Standing Stone Monuments of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant,” in Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East, N. Laneri, ed., Oxford, pp. 48–59.

Andrianakis, M., and I Tzachili, eds. 2010. Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 1. Πρακτικά της 1ης Συνάvτησης, Ρέθυμνο, 28–30 Νοεμβρίου 2008, Rethymnon. Andrianakis, M., P. Varthalitou, and I. Tzachili, eds. 2012. Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 2. Πρακτικά της 2ης Συνάvτησης, Ρέθυμνο, 26–28 Νοεμβρίου 2010, Rethymnon. Appadurai, A. 1981. “Gastro-politics in Hindu South Asia,” in Symbol and Cognition, special issue, American Ethnological Society 8, N.E. Whitten, ed., pp. 494–511. Arnott, R. 1996. “Healing and Medicine in the Aegean Bronze Age,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 89, pp. 265–270. Bahn, P.G. 1989. Bluff Your Way in Archaeology (Bluffer’s Guides), Horsham. Banou, E. 2000. “Τα λίθινα αντικείμενα από το Μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στον Αη-Γιώργη στο Βουνό Κυθήρων,” in Πεπραγμένα Ηʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (2), Herakleion, pp. 383–394. . 2003. “Τα Κύθηρα ανάμεσα στη Μινωική Κρήτη και τη Μυκηναϊκή Πελοπόννησο: Τα μικροαντικείμενα από το μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στον

156

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Aη-Γιώργη στο Βουνό,” in Κύθηρα: Μύθος και Πραγματικότητα. Αʹ Διεθνές Συνεδρίο Κυθηραϊκών Μελετών, 20–24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2000. Αʹ: Απεικόνιση και ερμηνεία του χώρου απο την προϊστορία στην αρχαιότητα και το βυζάντιο, Athens, pp. 69–75. . 2007. “Μινωικά ιερά κορυφής: Η περίπτωση του Αγίου Γεωργίου στο Βουνό Κυθήρων,” ΕΠΑΘΛΟΝ: Αρχαιολογικό Συνέδριο προς τιμήν του Αδώνιδος Κ. Κύρου, Πόρος, 7–9 Ιουνίου 2002 Αʹ, H. KonsolakiGiannopoulou, ed., Athens, pp. 285–294. . 2008. “Minoan ‘Horns of Consecration’ Revisited: A Symbol of Sun Worship in Palatial and PostPalatial Crete?” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 8 (1), pp. 27–47. . 2012. “Μικροαντικείμενα μινωικών χρόνων από πηλό, λίθο και πολύτιμες ύλες,” Sakellarakis, ed., 2012, pp. 249–507. Barber, R.L.N., and O. Hadjianastasiou. 1989. “Mikre Vigla: A Bronze Age Settlement on Naxos,” BSA 84, pp. 63–162. Barfoed, S. 2015. “The Significant Few: Miniature Pottery from the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia,” WorldArch 47, pp. 170–188. Barrett, J.C. 1991. “The Archaeology of Social Reproduction,” in Landscape, Monuments and Society: The Prehistory of Cranborne Chase, J.C. Barrett, R. Bradley, and M. Green, eds., Cambridge, pp. 6–8. . 1999. “The Mythical Landscapes of the British Iron Age,” in Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp, eds., Oxford, pp. 253–265. Bartsiokas, A. 1998. Παλαιοντολογία των Κυθήρων (Εταιρεία Κυθηραϊκών Μελετών 9), Athens. Beckmann, S. 2014a. “An ‘Agricultural Calendar, from the Bronze Age?,” in Explaining and Exploring Diversity in Agricultural Technology (Early Agricultural Remnants and Technical Heritage [EARTH]: 8,000 Years of Resilience and Innovation 2), A. Van Gijn, J.C. Whittaker, and P.C. Anderson, eds., Oxford, pp. 319–324. . 2014b. “Minoan Enclosure Walls,” in Explaining and Exploring Diversity in Agricultural Technology (EARTH 2), A. Van Gijn, J.C. Whittaker, and P.C. Anderson, eds., Oxford, pp. 22–24. Bendall, L.M. 2007. Economics of Religion in the Mycenaean World. Resources Dedicated to Religion in the Mycenaean Palace Economy (Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 67), Oxford. Bender, B. 1992. “Theorising Landscapes, and the Prehistoric Landscapes of Stonehenge,” Man 27, pp. 735–755.

Benton, S. 1931–1932. “The Ionian Islands,” BSA 32, pp. 213–246. Benzi, M. 1984. “Evidence for a Middle Minoan Settlement on the Acropolis at Ialysos (Mt. Philerimos),” in The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982 (ActaAth 4°, 32), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 93–104. . 1993. “The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Vathy Cave, Kalymnos,” in Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age, 1939–1989. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Athens, December 2–3, 1989, C. Zerner, P. Zerner, and J. Winder, eds., Amsterdam, pp. 275–288. Betancourt, P.P. 1980. Cooking Vessels from Minoan Kommos: A Preliminary Report (UCLAPap 7), Los Angeles. . 1985. The History of Minoan Pottery, Princeton. . 1986. “The Chronology of Middle Minoan Plain Cups in Southern Crete,” in Φίλια ἔπη εἰς Γεώργιον Ἐ. Μυλωνᾶν διὰ τὰ 60 ἔτη τοῦ ἀνασκαφικοῦ του ἔργου (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 103), vol. Aʹ, Athens, pp. 284–292. . 1990. Kommos II: The Final Neolithic through Middle Minoan III Pottery, Princeton. . 2005. Pseira IX: The Archaeological Survey of Pseira Island. Part 2: The Intensive Surface Survey (Prehistory Monographs 12), Philadelphia. . 2012. “Trade and Interconnections in Lasithi between EM II and MM I: The Evidence from the Ayios Charalambos Cave,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 184–194. Bevan, A.H. 2002. “The Rural Landscape of Neopalatial Kythera: A GIS Perspective,” JMA 15, pp. 217–256. . 2007. Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean, Cambridge. Bevan, A.H., and J. Conolly. 2002–2004. “GIS, Archaeological Survey, and Landscape Archaeology on the Island of Kythera, Greece,” JFA 29, pp. 123–138. . 2013. Mediterranean Islands, Fragile Communities and Persistent Landscapes: Antikythera in LongTerm Perspective, Cambridge. Bevan, A.H., C. Frederick, and A. Krachtopoulou. 2003. “A Digital Mediterranean Countryside: GIS Approaches to the Spatial Structure of the Post-Medieval Landscape on Kythera (Greece),” Archeologia e Calcolatori 14, pp. 217–236.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Bevan, A., E. Kiriatzi, C. Knappett, E. Kappa, and S. Papachristou. 2002. “Excavation of Neopalatial Deposits at Tholos (Kastri), Kythera,” BSA 97, pp. 55–96. Blackman, J., and K. Branigan. 1977. “An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Catchment of the Ayiofarango Valley,” BSA 72, pp. 13–84. Blomberg, M., and G. Henriksson. 2001. “Archaeoastronomy: New Trends in the Field, with Methods and Results from Studies in Minoan Crete,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 247 (3), pp. 609–619. Borgna, E. 2004. “Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective,” in The Mycenaean Feast, J.C. Wright, ed., special issue, Hesperia 73, Princeton, pp. 247–279. Bosanquet, R.C., R.M. Dawkins, M.N. Tod, W.L.H. Duckworth, and J.L. Myres. 1902–1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro, II,” BSA 9, pp. 274–387. Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places, London.

157

Third Palace Period,” in AUTOCHTHON. Papers Presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the Occasion of His Retirement. Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 9 November 2005 (BAR-IS 1432), A. Dakouri-Hild and S. Sherratt, eds., Oxford, pp. 70–96. Broodbank, C., T. Rehren, and A.-M. Zianni. 2007. “Scientific Analysis of Metal Objects and Metallurgical Remains from Kastri, Kythera,” BSA 102, pp. 219–238. Brown, A., and A.A.D. Peatfield. 1987. “Stous Athropolithous: A Minoan Site Near Epano Zakro, Sitias,” BSA 82, pp. 23–33. Brück, J. 2007. “Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology,” in The Archaeology of Identities: A Reader, T. Insoll, ed., London, pp. 281–307. Burkert, W. 1996. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. J. Raffan, reprint, Oxford.

. 1981. “Minoan Colonialism,” BSA 76, pp. 23–33.

Cadogan, G. 1988. “Some Middle Minoan Problems,” in Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Bristol, pp. 95–99.

. 1994. “Open-Air Shrines in Pre-Palatial Crete,” in Λοιβὴ εἰς μνήμην Ἀνδρέα Γ. Καλοκαιρινοῦ, K. Kopaka, ed., Herakleion, pp. 279–290.

Cain, C.D. 2001. “Dancing in the Dark: Deconstructing a Narrative of Epiphany on the Isopata Ring,” AJA 105, pp. 27–49.

. 1998. “Prehistoric and Early Historic Settlement in the Ziros Region, Eastern Crete,” BSA 93, pp. 23–90.

Cameron, M. 1978. “Theoretical Interrelations among Theran, Cretan and Mainland Frescoes,” Thera and the Aegean World I. Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978, C. Doumas, ed., London, pp. 579–592.

Branigan, K. 1970. The Foundations of Palatial Crete: A Survey of Crete in the Early Bronze Age (States and Cities of Ancient Greece), London.

Briault, C. 2007a. “High Fidelity or Chinese Whispers? Cult Symbols and Ritual Transmission in the Bronze Age Aegean,” JMA 20, pp. 239–265. . 2007b. “Making Mountains out of Molehills in the Bronze Age Aegean: Visibility, Ritual Kits, and the Idea of a Peak Sanctuary,” WorldArch 39, pp. 122–141. Broodbank, C. 1999. “Kythera Survey: Preliminary Report on the 1998 Season,” BSA 94, pp. 191–214. . 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge. . 2004. “Minoanisation,” PCPS 50, pp. 46–91. Broodbank, C., and E. Kiriatzi. 2007. “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited: Technology, Demography, and Landscape in the Prepalatial Aegean,” AJA 111, pp. 241–274. Broodbank, C., E. Kiriatzi, and J. Rutter. 2005. “From Pharaoh’s Feet to the Slave-Women of Pylos? The History and Cultural Dynamics of Kythera in the

Carter, T. 2004. “The Stone Implements,” in Mochlos IC: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalimouri. The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9), J.S. Soles, C. Davaras, J. Bending, T. Carter, D. Kondopoulou, D. Mylona, M. Ntinou, A.M. Nicgorski, D.S. Reese, A. Sarpaki, W.H. Schoch, M.E. Soles, V. Spatharas, Z.A. Stos-Gale, D. H. Tarling, and C. Witmore, Philadelphia, pp. 61–107. Carter, T., D.A. Contreras, K. Campeau, and K. Freund. 2016. “Spherulites and Aspiring Elites: The Identification, Distribution, and Consumption of Giali Obsidian (Dodecanese, Greece),” JMA 29, pp. 3–36. Caskey, J.L. 1971. “Investigations in Keos. Part I: Excavations and Explorations, 1966–1970,” Hesperia 40, pp. 359–396. Castleden, R. 1990. The Knossos Labyrinth: A New View of the “Palace of Minos” at Knossos, London.

158

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

. 1993. Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete, London. Catling, H.W. 2009. Sparta: Menelaion I. The Bronze Age (BSA Suppl. 45), London. Catling, E., H.W. Catling, D. Smyth, G. Jones, and R.E. Jones. 1979. “Knossos 1975: Middle Minoan III and Late Minoan I Houses by the Acropolis,” BSA 74, pp. 1–80. Cavanagh, W., C. Gallou, I. Spondylis, and J. Henderson. 2022. “Southern Laconia in the Middle and Earlier Late Bronze Age: Pottery from Pavlopetri and Other Sites,” in Middle and Late Helladic Laconia: Competing Principalities? C. Wiersma and M.P. Tsouli, eds., Leiden, 33–45. Chadwick, J. 1957. “Potnia,” Minos 5, pp. 117–129. Cherry, J.F. 1986. “Polities and Palaces: Some Problems in Minoan State Formation,” in Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change (New Directions in Archaeology), C. Renfrew and J.F. Cherry, eds., Cambridge, pp. 19–45. Christaki, Υ.Υ. 2009. “Ὁ ἀσκητής,” Ἄγκυρα Ἐλπίδος 53, pp. 35–36.

Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982 (ActaAth 4°, 32), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 107–112. Coldstream, J.N. and G.L. Huxley, eds. 1972. Kythera: Excavations and Studies Conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Museum and the British School at Athens, London. Cook, A.B. 1904. “Zeus, Jupiter, and the Oak. (Conclusion.),” CR 18, pp. 360–375. . 1940. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion III: Zeus God of the Dark Sky (Earthquakes, Clouds, Wind, Dew, Rain, Meteorites), Cambridge. Coroneos, C., L. Diacopoulos, T.E. Gregory, I. Johnson, J. Noller, S.A. Paspalas, and A. Wilson. 2002. “The Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey: Field Season 1999–2000,” MeditArch 15, pp. 126–143. Crooks, S. 2012. “Cult Stones of Ancient Cyprus,” JPR 23, pp. 25–44. . 2013. What are these Queer Stones? Baetyls: Epistemology of a Minoan Fetish (BAR-IS 2511), Oxford.

Christakis, K.S. 2010. “A Wine Offering to the Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos: The Evidence from KN Zb 27,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 49–55.

Crooks, S., C.J. Tully, and L.A. Hitchcock. 2016. “Numinous Tree and Stone: Re-animating the Minoan landscape,” in Alram-Stern et al., eds., 2016, pp. 157–164.

Chryssoulaki, S. 1999. “Ιερό κορυφής Τραόσταλου,” Κρητική Εστία 7, pp. 310–317.

Cummer, W.W., and E. Schofield. 1984. Ayia Irini: House A (Keos III), Mainz on Rhine.

. 2001. “The Traostalos Peak Sanctuaries: Aspects of Spatial Organisation,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 57–66.

Cunningham, T., and J. Driessen. 2004. “Site by Site: Combining Survey and Excavation Data to Chart Patterns of Socio-political Change in Bronze Age Crete,” in Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry, eds., Oxford, pp. 101–113.

Coldstream, J.N. 1972a. “Deposits of Pottery from the Settlement,” in Coldstream and Huxley, eds., 1972, pp. 77–204. . 1972b. “Kythera: The Sequence of Pottery, and Its Chronology,” in Coldstream and Huxley, eds., 1972, pp. 272–308. . 1972c. “Tombs: The Finds,” in Coldstram and Huxley, eds., 1972, pp. 228–271. . 1973. “Kythera: The Change from Early Helladic to Early Minoan,” in Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean: Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory, R.A. Crossland and A. Birchall, eds., London, pp. 33–36. . 1978. “Kythera and the Southern Peloponnese in the LM I period,” in Thera and the Aegean World I. Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978, C. Doumas, ed., London, pp. 389–401. Coldstream, J.N., and G.L. Huxley. 1984. “The Minoans of Kythera,” The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and

D’Agata, A.L., and A. Van de Moortel, eds. 2009. Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (Hesperia Suppl. 42), Princeton. Danamos, G.D. 2003. “Kythera Island: A Model Area for Studying the Neotectonic Evolution of the Hellenic Orogenic Arc,” in Κύθηρα: Μύθος και Πραγματικότητα. Αʹ Διεθνές Συνεδρίο Κυθηραϊκών Μελετών, 20– 24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2000. Αʹ: Απεικόνιση και ερμηνεία του χώρου απο την προϊστορία στην αρχαιότητα και το βυζάντιο, Athens, pp. 21–41. Davaras, C. 1971. “Περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαίων ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” Prakt 126 [1973], pp. 301–303. . 1972. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογική κίνηση στὴν ἀνατολική Κρήτη κατά τὸ 1971,” Ἀμάλθεια 3, pp. 33–52. . 1974. “Ἀνασκαφὴ ΜΜ ἱεροῦ κορυφῆς Βρύσινα Ρεθύμνης,” AAA 7, pp. 210–212.

LIST OF REFERENCES

. 1981. “Σύνθετα ιερά κέρατα από το ιερό κορυφής του Πετσοφά,” in Πεπραγμένα Δʹ Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου Aʹ (1), Athens, pp. 88–93. . 2010. “One Minoan Peak Sanctuary Less: The Case of Thylakas,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 71–87. Day, J. 2011. “Crocuses in Context: A Diachronic Survey of the Crocus Motif in the Aegean Bronze Age,” Hesperia 80, pp. 337–379. Day, P.M., and D.E. Wilson. 2004. “Ceramic Change and the Practice of Eating and Drinking in Early Bronze Age Crete,” in Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett, eds., Oxford, pp. 45–62. DeMarrais, E. 2014. “Introduction: The Archaeology of Performance,” WorldArch 46, pp. 155–163.

159

Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4), K. Branigan, ed., Sheffield, pp. 51–71. . 2012. “Ανασκαφές στο Σίσι 2007–2010,” in Andrianakis, Varthalitou, and Tzachili, eds., 2012, pp. 81–88. Driessen, J., and C.F. Macdonald, 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liège. Durkheim, E. 1964. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. J.W. Swain, London. Eliade, M. 1996. Patterns in Comparative Religion, R. Sheed (trans.), reprint, Mineola, NY. Evans, A. 1921–1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos I– IV, London. Farnell, L.R. 1896. The Cults of the Greek States I, Oxford.

Devetzi, A. 2000. “The ‘Imported’ Stone Vases at Akrotiri, Thera: A New Approach to the Material,” BSA 95, pp. 121–139.

Faro, E.Z. 2008. “Ritual Activity and Regional Dynamics: Towards a Reinterpretation of Minoan ExtraUrban Ritual Space,” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1994. “Comments on a Popular Model of Minoan Religion,” OJA 13, pp. 173–184.

Faure, P. 1963. “Cultes des sommets et cultes de cavernes en Crète,” BCH 87, pp. 493–508.

Dietler, M. 1990. “Driven by Drink: The Role of Drinking in the Political Economy and the Case of Early Iron Age France,” JAnthArch 9, 352–406.

. 1965. “Recherches sur le peuplement des montagnes de Crète: sites, cavernes et cultes,” BCH 89, pp. 27–63.

. 2001. “Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African Contexts,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, M. Dietler and B. Hayden, eds., Washington, D.C., pp. 65–114.

. 1967. “Nouvelles recherches sur trois sortes de sanctuaires crétois,” BCH 91, pp. 114–150.

. 2011. “Feasting and Fasting,” in Insoll, ed., 2011, pp. 179–194. Dietrich, B.C. 1969. “Peak Cults and Their Place in Minoan Religion,” Historia 18, pp. 257–275. . 1971. “Minoan Peak Cult: A Reply,” Historia 20, pp. 513–523. . 1988. “The Instrument of Sacrifice,” in Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens 26–29 June 1986 (ActaAth 4°, 38), R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, and G.C. Nordquist, eds., Stockholm, pp. 35–40. Doumas, C.G. 1992. The Wall-Paintings of Thera, Athens. Driessen, J. 2001a. “Crisis Cults on Minoan Crete?” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 361–369. . 2001b. “History and Hierarchy. Preliminary Observations on the Settlement Pattern in Minoan Crete,” Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield

. 1969. “Sur trois sortes de sanctuaires crétois (suite),” BCH 93, pp. 174–213. Filippa-Touchais, A. 2000. “Η τριποδική χύτρα στον αιγαιακό χώρο κατά τη Μέση Χαλκοκρατία: Διάδοση και σημασία,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (3), Herakleion, pp. 421–436. Flevari, L. 2016. “Μικρογραφικά αγγεία,” in Tzachili 2016, pp. 167–184. Fogelin, L. 2007. “The Archaeology of Religious Ritual,” Annual Review of Anthropology 36, pp. 55–71. Foster, K.P., and R. Laffineur, eds. 2003. Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002 (Aegaeum 24), Liège and Austin. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. A. Sheridan, New York. . 1986. “Of Other Spaces,” trans. J. Miskowiec, Diacritics 16, pp. 22–27. Foxhall, L. 2015. “Introduction: Miniaturization,” WorldArch 47, pp. 1–5.

160

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Frazer, J. 1996. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, London. Gaifman, M. 2012. Aniconism in Greek Antiquity (Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation), Oxford. Georgakopoulou, M. 2014. “Metallurgical Remains from Regional Surveys of ‘Non-Industrial’ Landscapes: The Case of the Kythera Island Project,” JFA 39, pp. 67–83. Georgiadis, M. 2003. The South-Eastern Aegean in the Mycenaean Period: Islands, Landscape, Death and Ancestors (BAR-IS 1196), Oxford. . 2012. “Leska: A New Peak Sanctuary on the Island of Kythera,” JPR 23, pp. 7–23. . 2014a. “The Material Culture of Ritual Sites from Minoan Kythera,” JPR 24, pp. 41–53. . 2014b. “The Physical Environment and the Beliefs at Leska, a New Peak Sanctuary on Kythera,” in Physis: L’environment naturel et la relation hommemiliey dan le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Recontre égéene internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Historie de l’Art (INHA), 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, eds., Leuven and Liege, pp. 481–484. . 2015. “The Bronze Age on Karpathos and Kythera,” in AEGIS. Essays in Mediterranean Archaeology Presented to Matti Egon by the Scholars of the Greek Archaeological Committee UK, Z. Theodoropoulou Polychroniadis and D. Evely, eds., Oxford, pp. 85–91. . 2016. “Metaphysical Beliefs and Leska,” in Alram-Stern et al., eds., 2016, pp. 295–302. Georgoulaki, E. 2002. “Discerning Early Minoan Cultic Trends: The Archaeological Evidence,” Kernos 15, pp. 19–29.

. 2001. “From Tholos Tomb to Throne Room: Perceptions of the Sun in Minoan Ritual,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 77–88. Guettel Cole, S. 2007. “Greek Religion,” in Hinnells, ed., 2007, pp. 266–317. Gurney, O.R. 1990. The Hittites, London. Haaland, G. and R. Haaland. 2011. “Landscape,” in Insoll, ed., 2011, pp. 24–37. Haggis, D.C. 1999. “Staple Finance, Peak Sanctuaries, and Economic Complexity in Late Prepalatial Crete,” in From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete, A. Chaniotis, ed., Stuttgart, pp. 53–85. Hamilakis, Y. 2013. Archaeology and the Senses: Human Experience, Memory, and Affect, Cambridge. Hammond, L. 2005. “Arcadian Miniature Pottery,” in Ancient Arcadia: Papers from the Third International Seminar on Ancient Arcadia, Held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002 (Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 8), E. Østby, ed., Athens, pp. 415–433. Hayden, B. 2001. “Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, M. Dietler and B. Hayden, eds., Washington, D.C. pp. 23–64. Henriksson, G., and M. Blomberg. 2011. “The Evidence from Knossos on the Minoan Calendar,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 11, pp. 59–68. Herva, V.-P. 2006. “Flower Lovers, after All? Rethinking Religion and Human-Environment Relations in Minoan Crete,” WorldArch 38, pp. 586–598. Hellenic Military Geographical Service (HGMS). 1982. “83275 Κύθηρα,” Athens.

Gesell, G.C. 1985. Town, Palace and House Cult in Minoan Crete (SIMA 67), Göteborg.

Hinnells, J.R. 2007. “Introduction,” in Hinnells, ed., 2007, pp. 1–6.

Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach of Visual Perception, Boston.

Hinnells, J.R., ed. 2007. Penguin Handbook of Ancient Religions, Cambridge.

Girella, L. 2002. “Vasi rituali con elementi miniatuarizzati a Creta, in Egeo e nel Mediterraneo orientale alle fine dell’età del Bronzo. Indicatori archeologici ed etnici,” CretAnt 3, pp. 167–216.

Hitchcock, L.A. 2007. “Naturalising the Cultural: Architectonised Landscape as Ideology in Minoan Crete,” in Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (BSA Studies 15), R. Westgate, N. Fisher, and J. Whitley, eds., London, pp. 91–97.

. 2010. Depositi ceramici del medio minoico III da Festòs e Hagia Triada (Studi di archeologia cretese 8), Padua. Goodison, L. 1989. Death, Women and the Sun: Symbolism of Regeneration in Early Aegean Religion (BICS Suppl. 53), London.

Hodder, I. 2016. Studies in Human-Thing Entaglement, accessed March 6, 2020, http://www.ian-hodder. com/books/studies-human-thing-entanglement.

LIST OF REFERENCES

161

Hogarth, D.G. 1900–1901. “Excavations at Zakro, Crete,” BSA 7, pp. 121–149.

. 1976. “Τό ἱερό κορυφῆς Γιούχτα,” Prakt 132 [1978], pp. 408–418.

Hood, S. 1981–1982. Excavations in Chios 1938–1955: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala I–II (BSA Suppl. 15–16), London.

. 1978. “Τό ἱερό κορυφῆς Γιούχτα,” Prakt 134 [1980], pp. 232–258.

. 2010. “The Middle Minoan Cemetery on Ailias at Knossos,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 161–168. Hoskin, M. 2001. Tombs, Temples and Their Orientations: A New Perspective on Mediterranean Prehistory, Bognor Regis. Howell, R.J. 1992. “The Middle Helladic Settlement: Pottery,” in Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece II: The Bronze Age Occupation, W.A. McDonald and N.C. Wilkie, eds., Minneapolis, pp. 43–204. Huxley, G.L. 1965. “Kythera,” ArchDelt 20 (Bʹ 1, Chronika) [1967], pp. 179–180. . 1966. “Excavations at Kastri,” ArchDelt 21 (Bʹ 1, Chronika) [1968], pp. 160–162. . 1972. “Small Finds from Deposits,” in Coldstream and Huxley, eds., 1972, pp. 205–219. . 2012. “Τοπογραφία των αρχαίων Κυθήρων,” in George Leonard Huxley. Επιστροφή στα Κύθηρα (Εκδόσεις Φίλων Μουσείου Κυθήρων 1), Kythera, pp. 13–17. Huxley, G.L., A.S. Trik, and J.N. Coldstream. 1972. “Tombs near Kastri,” in Coldstream and Huxley, eds., 1972, pp. 220–227. Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion (Themes in Archaeology), London. Insoll, T., ed. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, Oxford. Isager, S., and J.E. Skydsgaard. 1995. Ancient Greek Agriculture: An Introduction, London. Janko, R. 2008. “General Observations on the Burials,” in Taylour and Janko 2008, pp. 141–144. Jones, D.W. 1999. Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete: A Comparison of Artifacts (SIMA-PB 156), Jonsered. Kanta, A., and L. Rocchetti. 1989. “La ceramic del primo edificio,” in Scavi a Nerokourou, Kydonias (Ricerche Greco-Italiane in Creta Occidentale 1; Incunabula Graeca 91), Rome, pp. 101–328. Karetsou, A. 1974. “Ἱερόν κορυφῆς Γιούχτα,” Prakt 129 [1976], pp. 228–258. . 1975. “Τό ἱερό κορυφῆς τοῦ Γιούχτα,” Prakt 131 [1977], pp. 330–340.

. 1980. “Τό ἱερό κορυφῆς Γιούχτα (1979–1980),” Prakt 136 [1982], pp. 337–353. . 1981. “The Peak Sanctuary of Mt Juktas,” in Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May, 1980 (ActaAth 4°, 28), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 137–153. . 2012. “Two Stone Kernoi from the Juktas Peak Sanctuary,” in Philistor. Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras (Prehistory Monographs 36), E. Mantzourani and P.P. Betancourt, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 81–96. Karetsou, A., and I. Mathioudaki. 2012. “The Middle Minoan III Building Complex at Alonaki, Juktas: Architectural Observations and Pottery Analysis,” CretAnt 13, pp. 83–107. Karetsou, A., and G. Rethemiotakis. 1990. “Κόφινας,” ArchDelt 45 (Bʹ 2, Chronika) [1995], pp. 429–430. . 1991–1993. “Ιερό κορυφής Κόφινα,” Κρητική Εστία 4, pp. 289–292. Karnava, A. 2016. “On Sacred Vocabulary and Religious Dedications: The Minoan ‘Libation Formula’,” in Alram-Stern et al., eds., 2016, pp. 345–355. Kiernan, P. 2015. “Miniature Objects as Representations of Realia,” WorldArch 47, pp. 45–59. Killen, J.T. 2004. “Wheat, Barley, Flour, Olives and Figs on Linear B Tablets,” Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett, eds., Oxford, pp. 155–173. Kiriatzi, E. 2003. “Sherds, Fabrics and Clay Sources: Reconstructing the Ceramic Landscapes of Prehistoric Kythera,” in Foster and Laffineur, eds., 2003, pp. 123–130. . 2010. “‘Minoanising’ Pottery Traditions in Southwest Aegean during the Middle Bronze Age: Understanding the Social Context of Technological and Consumption Practice,” in MESOHELLADIKA: 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, 18–12 mars 2006 (BCH Suppl. 52), A. Phillipa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright, eds., Paris, pp. 683–699.

162

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Kiriatzi, E., M. Georgakopoulou, C. Broodbank, and A.W. Johnston. 2012. “Η ιστορία ενός τοπίου μέσα από τη μελέτη και ανάλυση κεραμικών και μεταλλουργικών ευρημάτων: Το παράδειγμα της επιφανειακής έρευνας Κυθήρων,” in Πρακτικά 5ου Συμποσίου Ελληνικής Αρχαιομετρικής Εταιρείας, N. Zacharias, M. Georgakopoulou, K. Polikreti, Y. Facorellis, and T. Vakoulis, eds., Athens, pp. 289–304. Kirk, T. 1993. “Space, Subjectivity, Power and Hegemony: Megaliths and Long Mounds in Earlier Neolithic Brittany,” in Interpretative Archaeology (Explorations in Anthropology), C. Tilley, ed., Providence, pp. 181–223. Knapp, A.B., and W. Ashmore 1999. “Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational,” in Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp, eds., Oxford, pp. 1–30. Knappett, C. 2002. “Photographs, Skeuomorphs and Marionettes: Some Thoughts on Mind, Agency and Object,” Journal of Material Culture 7, pp. 97–117. . 2008. “The Material Culture,” Shelmerdine, ed., 2008, pp. 121–139. . 2012. “Meaning in Miniature: Semiotic Networks in Material Culture,” in Excavating the Mind: Cross-Sections through Culture, Cognition and Materiality, N. Johannsen, M.D. Jessen, and H.J. Jensen, eds., Aarhus, pp. 87–109. Knappett, C., A. Collar, H. Sackett, P. Warren, and V.E.G. Kenna. 2007. “Unpublished Middle Minoan and Late Minoan I Material from the 1962–3 Excavations at Palaikastro, East Crete (PK VIII),” BSA 102, pp. 153–217. Knappett, C., and T.F. Cunningham. 2003. “Three Neopalatial Deposits from Palaikastro, East Crete,” BSA 98, pp. 107–187. . 2012. Palaikastro Block M: the Proto- and Neopalatial Town (BSA Suppl. 47), London. Knappett, C., and J. Hilditch. 2015. “Colonial Cups? The Minoan Plain Handless Cup as Icon and Index,” in Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East: Production, Use, and Social Significance (UCL Institute of Archaeology Publication 67), C. Glatz, ed., Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 91–113. Knappett, C., and I. Schoep. 2000. “Continuity and Change in Minoan Palatial Power,” Antiquity 74, pp. 365–371. Koehl, R.B. 2006. Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (Prehistory Monographs 19), Philadelpia. Kontopodi, D.Z., K. Georgakopoulos, and M. Spyridakis 2015. “Ένα ιερό κορυφής στην αλπική ζώνη του

Ψηλορείτη,” Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 3. Πρακτικά της 3ης Συνάυτησης, Ρέθυμνο, 5–8 Δεκεμβρίου 2013, P. Karanastasi, A. Tzigounaki, and C. Tzigounaki, eds., Rethymnon, pp. 251–262. Kordatzaki, G. 2010. “Επιφανειακή έρευνα στα ορεινά του Ρεθύμνου: ενδεικτική ανάλυση κεραμικής από τον Βρύσινα,” in Andrianakis and Tzachili, eds., 2010, pp. 464–475. . 2012. “Περιπτώσεις ‘κατανάλωσης’ κεραμικής σε ιερά κορυφής: μία τεχνολογική προσέγγιση,” in Andrianakis, Varthalitou, and Tzachili, eds., 2012, pp. 399–404. Kourkoumelis, D. 2011. “Θαλάσσιοι ορίζοντες του Αγίου Γεωργίου στο Βουνό,” in Sakellarakis 2011, pp. 75–111. Krahtopoulou, A., and C. Frederick. 2008. “The Stratigraphic Implications of Long-Term Terrace Agriculture in Dynamic Landscapes: Polycyclic Terracing from Kythera Island, Greece,” Geoarchaeology 23, pp. 550–585. Kringa, D. 2010. “Η ΥΜ ΙΒ αγρέπαυλη στην Επάνω Ζάκρο: Νέα στοιχεία ως προς την αρχιτεκτονική μορφή και τη λειτουργία του κτηρίου,” in Andrianakis and Tzachili, eds., 2010, pp. 155–169. Krzyszkowska, O., ed. 2010. Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (BSA Studies 18), London. Kyriakidis, E. 2001. “The Economics of Potnia: Storage in ‘Temples’ of Prehistoric Greece,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 123–129. . 2005a. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean: The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries, London. . 2005b. “Unidentified floating objects on Minoan seals,” AJA 109, pp. 137–154. . 2007a. “Finding Ritual: Calibrating the Evidence,” in The Archaeology of Ritual (Cotsen Advanced Seminar 3), E. Kyriakidis, ed., Los Angeles, pp. 9–22. . 2007b. “Archaeologies of Ritual,” in The Archaeology of Ritual (Cotsen Advanced Seminar 3), E. Kyriakidis, ed., Los Angeles, pp. 289–308. . 2011. “Το ιερό κορυφής Πύργου Τυλίσου και διαφαινόμενη χρήση του ως ιερού κατά την Κλασική Εποχή,” in Πεπραγμένα Ιʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Αʹ (5), Chania, pp. 413–424. Kyrou, A. 2003. “Ταυτότητα Μινωϊτών και Φοινίκων στα Προϊστορικά Κύθηρα,” in Κύθηρα: Μύθος και Πραγματικότητα. Αʹ Διεθνές Συνεδρίο Κυθηραϊκών Μελετών, 20–24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2000. Αʹ: Απεικόνιση και ερμηνεία του χώρου απο την προϊστορία στην αρχαιότητα και το βυζάντιο, Athens, pp. 51–67.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Laffineur, R., and R. Hägg, eds. 2001. Potnia: Dieties and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), Liège. Lambrinudakis, V. 1981. “Remains of Mycenaean Period in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas,” in Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May, 1980 (ActaAth 4°, 28), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 59–65. Laneri, N. 2015. “Introduction: Investigating Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Religious Practices and Beliefs,” in Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East, N. Laneri, ed., Oxford, pp. 1–10. Langdon, S. 2007. “The Awkward Age: Art and Maturation in Early Greece,” in Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy (Hesperia Suppl. 41), A. Cohen and J.B. Rutter, eds., Princeton, pp. 173–191. La Rosa, V. 2001. “Minoan Baetyls: Between Funerary Rituals and Epiphanies,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 221–227. Lebessi, A. 2009. “The Erotic Goddess of the Syme Sanctuary, Crete,” AJA 113, pp. 521–545. Lebessi, A., and P. Muhly. 1990. “Aspects of Minoan Cult: Sacred Enclosures. The Evidence from the Syme Sanctuary (Crete),” AA 1990, pp. 315–336. Leonhard, R. 1899. Die Insel Kythera: Eine geographische Monographie (Petermanns Mittielungen Ergänzungsheft 128), Gotha. Logue, W. 2004. “Set in Stone: The Role of ReliefCarved Stone Vessels in Neopalatial Minoan Elite Propaganda,” BSA 99, pp. 149–172. López-Bertran, M., and J. Vives-Ferrándiz. 2015. “Miniatures from Domestic Contexts in Iron Age Iberia,” WorldArch 47, pp. 80–93. Macdonald, C.F., E. Hallager, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds. 2009. 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 Archaeolgical Institute at Athens (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 8), Aarhus. MacGillivray, J.A., L.H. Sackett, and J.M. Driessen. 1998. “Excavations at Palaikastro, 1994 and 1996,” BSA 93, pp. 221–268. . 2007. Palaikastro: Two Late Minoan Wells (BSA Suppl. 43), Athens.

163

MacGillivray, J.A., L.H. Sackett, J.M. Driessen, and S. Hemingway. 1992. “Excavations at Palaikastro 1991,” BSA 87, pp. 121–152. Manning, S.W. 2008. “Formation of the Palaces,” in Shel­merdine, ed., 2008, pp. 105–120. . 1993. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol (Studies in Comparative Religion), Columbia, SC. . 2010. Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine, Urbana. Marinatos, S. 1976. Κρητομυκηναϊκή θρησκεία, Athens. Marketou, T. 1988. “Ιαλυσός-Ιξιά,” ArchDelt 43 (Bʹ 2, Chronika) [1993], pp. 615–617. . 2009. “Ialysos and Its Neighbouring Areas in the MBA and LB I Periods: A Chance for Peace,” in Macdonald, Hallager, and Niemeier, eds., 2009, pp. 73–96. Marsellos, A.E., and W.S.F. Kidd 2008. “Extension and Exhumation of the Hellenic Forearc Ridge in Kythera,” Journal of Geology 116, 640–651. Marthari, M. 2009. “Middle Cycladic and Early Late Cycladic Cemeteries and Their Minoan Elements: The Case of the Cemetery at Skarkos on Ios,” in Macdonald, Hallager and Niemeier, eds., 2009, pp. 41–58. Matzanas, C. 2000. “Άναμμα φωτιάς με κρούση: Φιλολογική, εθνοαρχαιολογική και πειραματική προσέγγιση προβιομηχανικών μεθόδων,” Corpus 20, pp. 42–53. Maurakakis, Y.I. 1947. Ποιμενικά δυτικής Κρήτης, Chania. Mauss, M. 1969. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, reprint, trans. I. Cunnison, London. Militello, P. 1998. Hagia Triada I: gli affreschi (ASAtene 9), Padua. Milner, N. 2011. “Taboo,” in Insoll, ed., 2011, pp. 105–114. Moody, J. 2009. “Environmental Change and Minoan Sacred Landscapes,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel, eds., 2009, pp. 241–249. Morgan, L. 1988. The Miniature Wall Paintings at Thera: A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge. Morris, C.E., and A.A.D. Peatfield. 1995. “Pottery from the Peak Sanctuary of Atsipadhes Korakias, Ay. Vasiliou, Rethymnon,” in Πεπραγμένα του Ζʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (2), Rethymnon, pp. 643–647.

164

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

. 2004. “Experiencing Ritual: Shamanic Elements in Minoan Religion,” in Celebrations: Sanctuaries and the Vestiges of Cult Activity. Selected Papers and Discussions from the Tenth Anniversary Symposion of the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 12–16 May 1999 (Papers of the Norwegian Institute at Athens 6), M. Wedde, ed., Bergen, pp. 35–59.

Nixon. L. 2009. “Investigating Minoan Sacred Landscapes,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel, eds., 2009, pp. 269–275.

. 2014. “Health and Healing on Cretan Bronze Age Peak Sanctuaries,” in Medicine and Healing in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Including the Proceedings of the International Conference with the Same Title, Organised in the Framework of the Research Project “INTERREG IIIA: Greece–Cyprus 2000–2006, Joint Educational and Research Programmes in the History and Archaeology of Medicine, Palaeopathology, and Paleoradiation,” and the 1st International CAPP Symposium “New Approaches to Archaeological Human Remains in Cyprus,” D. Michaelides, ed., Oxford, pp. 54–63.

. 2001. “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: Reassessing Their Origins,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 31–37.

Moss, M.L. 2005. The Minoan Pantheon: Towards an Understanding of Its Nature and Extent (BAR-IS 1343), Oxford. Mountjoy, P.A. 2003. “The Late Minoan I–III Pottery,” in Knossos: The South House (BSA Suppl. 34), P.A. Mountjoy, London, pp. 51–152. Muhly, P. 1981. “Minoan Libation Tables,” Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College. Munsell Color. 2010. Munsell Soil-Color Charts, Grand Rapids. Myres, J.L. 1902–1903. “Excavation at Palaikastro II: §13. The Sanctuary-Site of Petsofa,” BSA 9, pp. 356–387. Negbi, M., and O. Negbi. 2002. “Saffron Crocus Domestication in Bronze Age Crete,” in World Islands in Prehistory: International Insular Investigations. V Deia International Conference of Prehistory (BAR-IS 1095), W.H. Waldren and J.A. Ensenyat, eds., Oxford, pp. 267–274. Niemeier, W.-D. 1987. “On the Function of the ‘Throne Room’ in the Palace at Knossos,” in The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984 (ActaAth 4°, 35), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 163–168.

Nowicki, K. 1994. “Some remarks on the Pre- and Protopalatial Peak Sanctuaries in Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 31–48.

. 2007a. Review of E. Kyriakidis, Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean: The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries, in AJA 111, pp. 576–578. . 2007b. “Some Remarks on New Peak Sanctuaries in Crete: Topography of a Ritual Area and Relation with Settlements,” JdI 122, pp. 1–31. . 2012. “East Cretan Peak Sanctuaries Revisited,” in Philistor. Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras (Prehistory Monographs 36), E. Mantzourani and P.P. Betancourt, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 139–154. . 2013. “Report on Investigations in Greece. XIII. Studies in 2011–2013,” Archeologia 64 [2014], pp. 141–165. . 2016–2017. “Cretan Peak Sanctuaries: Distribution, Topography and Spatial Organization of Ritual,” Archeologia 67 [2018], pp. 7–29. . 2019. “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 ΙΒʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ, Herakleion, pp. 1–15. Onasoglou, A. 1990. “Κύθηρα: Παλαιόπολις,” ArchDelt 45 (Bʹ 1, Chronika) [1995], pp. 81–83. Overbeck, G.F. 1984. “The Development of Grave Types at Ayia Irini, Kea,” in The Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology, J.A. MacGillivray and R.L.N. Barber, eds., Edinburgh, pp. 114–118. . 1989. “The Cemeteries and the Graves,” in Ayia Irini: Period IV. Part 1: The Stratigraphy and the Find Deposits (Keos VII), J.C. Overbeck, Mainz am Rhein, pp. 184–205.

. 2009. “‘Minoanisation’ versus ‘Minoan Thalassocracy’: An Introduction,” in Macdonald, Hallager, and Niemeier, eds., 2009, pp. 11–29.

Palaima, T.G. 2004a. “Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Documents,” in The Mycenaean Feast, J.C. Wright, ed., special issue, Hesperia 73, Princeton, pp. 217–246.

Nilsson, M.P. 1950. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion (Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Ludensis 9), 2nd rev. ed., Lund.

. 2004b. “Linear B Sources,” in Anthology of Classical Myth: Primary Sources in Translation, trans. and ed. S.M. Trzaskoma, R.S. Smith, and S. Brunet, Indianapolis, pp. 439–454.

LIST OF REFERENCES

. 2010. “Linear B,” The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 bc), E.H. Cline, ed., Oxford, pp. 356–372. Panagiotaki, M. 1998. “Dating the Temple Repositories Vases,” BSA 93, pp. 185–198. . 1999. The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (BSA Suppl. 31), London. Panagiotopoulos, D. 2002. Das Tholosgrab E von Phourni bei Archanes. Studien zu einem frühkretischen Grabfund und seinem kulturellen Kontext (BAR-IS 1014), Oxford. Papadopoulou, E., and I. Tzachili. 2010. “Ανασκαφή στο ιερό κορυφής του Βρύσινα νομού Ρεθύμνης,” in Andrianakis and Tzachili, eds., 2010, pp. 452–463. . 2011. “Συστηματική ανασκαφή στο ιερό κορυφής του Βρύσινα, Ν. Ρεθύμνης: προκαταρκτική εργασία,” in Πεπραγμένα Ιʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Αʹ (3), Chania, pp. 293–312. Paspalas, S.A., and T.E. Gregory. 2009. “Προκαταρκτικά συμπεράσματα της επιφανειακής έρευνας της Αυστραλιανής αποστολής στα Κύθηρα, 1999–2003,” in From Mesogeia to Argosaronikos: Bʹ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Anqituities. Research of a Decade, 1994–2003. Proceedings of Conference, Athens, December 18–20, 2003, V. Vasilopoulou and S. Katsarou-Tzeveleki, eds., Athens, pp. 549–560. Patton, K.C. 2009. Religion of the Gods: Ritual, Paradox, and Reflexivity, Oxford Peatfield, A.A.D. 1983. “The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” BSA 78, pp. 273–279. . 1987. “Palace and Peak: The Political and Religious Relationship between Palaces and Peak Sanctuaries,” in The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984 (ActaAth 4°, 35), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 89–93. . 1990. “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: History and Society,” OpAth 18, pp. 117–131. . 1992. “Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The Peak Sanctuary at Atsipadhes,” CAJ 2, pp. 59–87. . 1994a. “After the ‘Big Bang’—What? Or Minoan Symbols and Shrines beyond Palatial Collapse,” in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, S.E. Alcock and R. Orborne, eds., Oxford, pp. 19–36. . 1994b. “The Atsipadhes Korakias Peak Sanctuary Project,” Classics Ireland 1, pp. 90–95.

165

. 1995. “Water, Fertility, and Purification in Minoan Religion,” in KLADOS. Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream (BICS 40, Suppl. 63), C. Morris, ed., London, pp. 217–227. . 2001. “Divinity and Performance on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 51–55. . 2007. “The Dynamics of Ritual on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in Cult in Context: Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology, D.A. Barrowclough and C. Malone, eds., Oxford, pp. 297–300. . 2009. “The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries Revisited,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel, eds., 2009, pp. 251–259. . 2013. “High Places and Royal Shrines,” in Tara: From the Past to the Future. Towards a New Research Agenda, M. O’Sullivan, C. Scarre, and M. Doyle, eds., London, Wordwell, pp. 475–483. Peatfield, A.A.D. and C.E. Morris. 2012. “Dynamic Spirituality on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in Archaeology of Spiritualities (One World Archaeology), K. Rountree, C.E. Morris, and A.A.D. Peatfield, eds., New York, pp. 227–245. Pemberton, E.G. 1989. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Greek Pottery (Corinth 18 [1]), Princeton. Pentedeka, A., E. Kiriatzi, L. Spencer, A. Bevan, and J. Conolly. 2010. “From Fabrics to Island Connections: Macroscopic and Microscopic Approaches to the Prehistoric Pottery of Antikythera,” BSA 105, pp. 1–81. Petrocheilos, I.E. 1984. Τα Κύθηρα: Από την προϊστορική εποχή ως τη Ρωμαιοκρατία, Ioannina. . 2003. “Αρχαίο ιερό στο Παλιόκαστρο,” in Κύθηρα: Μύθος και Πραγματικότητα. Αʹ Διεθνές Συνεδρίο Κυθηραϊκών Μελετών, 20–24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2000. Αʹ: Απεικόνιση και ερμηνεία του χώρου απο την προϊστορία στην αρχαιότητα και το βυζάντιο, Athens, pp. 77–89. . 2004. “Παλιόκαστρο Κυθήρων: γεωμετρικά και αρχαϊκά,” in Το Αιγαίο στην πρώιμη εποχή του Σιδήρου. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Ρόδος, 1–4 Νοεμβρίου 2002, N.C. Stampolidis and A. Giannikouri, eds., Athens, pp. 453–460. Platon, N. 1951. “Τὸ ἱερὸν Μαζᾶ (Καλοῦ Χωριοῦ Πεδιάδος) καὶ τὰ μινωικὰ ἱερὰ κορυφῆς,” CretChron 5, pp. 96–160. . 1952. “Τὸ ἱερὸν Πισκοκεφάλου Σητείας,” Prakt 108 [1955], pp. 630–636.

166

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

. 1968. “The Palace of Kato Zakro,” in Ancient Crete, S. Alexiou, N. Platon, and H. Guanelli, eds., London, pp. 163–232.

Rethemiotakis, G., and K.S. Christakis. 2011. “Landscapes of Power in Protopalatial Crete: New Evidence from Galatas, Pediada,” SMEA 53, pp. 195–218.

. 1971. Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete, New York.

Romano, D.G., and M.E. Voyatzis. 2010. “Excavating the Birthplace of Zeus: The Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project,” Expedition 52, pp. 9–21.

Platon, N., and K. Davaras. 1961–1962. “Κεντρικὴ καὶ ἀνατολικὴ Κρήτη,” ArchDelt 17 (Bʹ, Chronika) [1963], pp. 281–291. Preston, L. 2007. “Bringing in the Dead: Burials and the Local Perspective on Kythera in the Second Palace Period,” OJA 26, pp. 239–260. Rehak, P. 1997. “The Role of Religious Painting in the Function of the Minoan Villa: The Case of Ayia Triadha,” in The Function of the “Minoan Villa”. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6–8 June, 1992 (ActaAth 4°, 46), R. Hägg, ed., Stockholm, pp. 163–175. Rehak, P., and J.G. Younger. 1998. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete,” AJA 102, pp. 91–173. Reid, J. 2007. Minoan Kato Zakro: A Pastoral Economy (BAR-IS 1713), Oxford. Renfrew, C. 2010. “Contrasting Trajectories: Crete and the Cyclades during the Aegean Early Bronze Age,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 285–291. Renfrew, C., O. Philanioutou, N. Brodie, and G. Gavalas. 2009. “The Early Cycladic Settlement at Dhaskalio, Keros: Preliminary Report of the 2008 Excavation Season,” BSA 104, pp. 27–47. Renfrew, C., O. Philanioutou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas, E. Margaritis, C. French, and P. Sotirakopoulou. 2007. “Keros: Dhaskalio and Kavos, Early Cycladic Stronghold and Ritual Centre. Preliminary Report of the 2006 and 2007 Excavation Seasons,” BSA 102, pp. 103–136. Rethemiotakis, G. 2001. Μινωικά πήλινα ειδώλια από την νεοανακτορική εως την υπομινωική περίοδο (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 218; Αρχαίοι τόποι και μουσεία της Ελλάδος 24), Athens. . 2001–2004, “Ιερά κορυφής,” ArchDelt 56–59 (Bʹ 5, Chronika) [2012], pp. 340–342. . 2008. “Minoan Religion: Deities, Sanctuaries, and Cults,” in From the Land of the Labyrinth: Minoan Crete, 3000–1100 b.c.: Essays, M. AndreadakiVlazaki, G. Rethemiotakis, and N. DimopoulouRethemiotaki, eds., Athens, pp. 79–88. . 2009. “A Neopalatial Shrine Model from the Minoan Peak Sanctuary at Gournos Krousonas,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel, eds., 2009, pp. 189–199.

. 2014. “Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project, Part 1: The Upper Sanctuary,” Hesperia 83, pp. 569–652. Roussou, M., and I. Tzachili. 2016. “Κωνικά κύπελλα,” in Tzachili 2016, pp. 151–166. Ruipérez, M.S., and J.L. Melena. 1996. Οι Μυκηναίοι Έλληνες, trans. M. Panagiotidou, Athens. Ruppenstein, F. 2011. “Early Helladic Peak Sanctuaries in Attica?” in 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 (BARIS 2227), W. Gauss, M. Lindblom, R.A.K. Smith, and J.C. Wright, eds., Oxford, pp. 227–230. Rutkowski, B. 1971. “Minoan Cults and History: Remarks on Professor B.C. Dietrich’s Paper,” Historia 20, pp. 1–19. . 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven. . 1991. Petsophas: A Cretan Peak Sanctuary (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilization 1), Warsaw. . 1994. “Minoan Caves: The Main Cult Area,” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 26–30. Rutter, J.B. 1979. “Stone Vases and Minyan Ware: A Facet of Minoan Influence on Middle Helladic Laconia,” AJA 83, pp. 464–469. Rutter, J.B., and S.H. Rutter. 1976. The Transition to Mycenaean: A Stratified Middle Helladic II to Late Helladic IIA Pottery Sequence from Ayios Stephanos in Laconia (Monumenta Archaeologica 4), Los Angeles. Sackett, L.H., and M. Popham. 1970. “Excavations at Palaikastro VII,” BSA 65, pp. 203–242. Sakellarakis, Y. 1970. “Τό Μινωικόν ὁρεινόν ἱερόν τοῦ Θύλακα,” ΑΑΑ 3, pp. 252–259. . 1996. “Minoan Religious Influence in the Aegean: The Case of Kythera,” BSA 91, pp. 81–99. . 2003. “Τα Κύθηρα στην τρίτη και δεύτερη χιλιετία π.Χ.,” in Νόστος 2. Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου. Βενετία και Κύθηρα. Βενετία, 6–7 Δεκεμβρίου 2002, K. Kasimati, ed., Athens, pp. 23–38. . 2011. Κύθηρα: Το μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στον Άγιο Γεώργιο στο Βουνό 1: Τα προανασκαφικά και η

LIST OF REFERENCES

ανασκαφή (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 271), Athens. . 2012. “Μινωικά χάλκινα μικροαντικείμενα,” in Sakellarakis, ed., 2012, pp. 213–238. . 2013. Κύθηρα: Ο Άγιος Γεώργιος στο Βουνό. Μινωική Λατρεία-Νεότεροι Χρόνοι (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 287), Athens. Sakellarakis, Y., ed. 2012. Κύθηρα: Το μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στον Άγιο Γεώργιο στο Βουνό 2: Τα ευρήματα (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 276), Athens. , ed. 2013. Κύθηρα: Το μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στον Άγιο Γεώργιο στο Βουνό 3: Τα ευρήματα (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 282), Athens. Sakellarakis, Y., and D. Panagiotopoulos. 2006. “Minoan Zominthos,” in Mylopotamos from Antiquity to the Present: Environment, Archaeology, History, Folklore, Sociology, I. Gavrilaki and Y. Tzifopoulos, eds., Rethymnon, pp. 47–75. Sakellarakis, Y., and J.-P. Olivier. 1994. “Un vase en pierre avec inscription en linéaire A du sanctuaire de sommet minoen de Cythère,” BCH 118, pp. 343–351. Sakellarakis, Y., and E. Sakellarakis. 1994. Κρήτη: Αρχάνες, Athens. Sampson, A. 1987. Η Νεολιθική περίοδος στα Δωδεκάνησα (Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου 35), Athens. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. 2012. “Χάλκινα ειδώλια,” in Sakellarakis, ed., 2012, pp. 1–212. Schlager, N., T. Alusik, M. Brandl, L. Fuchs, U. GünkelMaschek, C. Kurtze, E. Mlinar, M. Pietrovito, W. Reiter, and R. Schlager. 2010. “Aspro Nero, Agia Irini, Livari in Südostkreta: Dokumentation 2008,” ÖJh 79, pp. 231–357. Schoep, I. 1994a. “‘Home Sweet Home’: Some Comments on the So-Called House Models from the Prehellenic Aegean,” OpAth 20, pp. 189–210. . 1994b. “Ritual, Politics, and Script on Minoan Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 7–25. Schoep, I., and P. Tomkins. 2012. “Back to the Beginning for the Early and Middle Bronze Age on Crete,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 1–31. Schoep, I., P. Tomkins, and J. Driessen, eds. 2012. Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford.

167

Schachermeyer, F. 1976. Die ägäische Frühzeit. Forschungsbericht über die Ausgrabungen im letzten Jahrzehnt und über ihre Ergenbnisse für unser Geschichts­bild. 2: Die mykenische Zeit und die Gesittung von Thera (SBWien 309), Vienna. Shelmerdine, C.W., ed. 2008. The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge. Siart, C., and B. Eitel. 2008. “Geoarchaeological Studies in Central Crete Based on Remote Sensing and GIS,” in Layers of Perception. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Berlin, Germany, April 2–6, 2007 (Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frügeschichte 10), A. Posluschny, K. Lambers, and I. Herzog, eds., Frankfurt, pp. 299–305. Siart, C., B. Eitel, and D. Panagiotopoulos. 2008. “Investigation of Past Archaeological Landscapes Using Remote Sensing and GIS: A Multi-Method Case Study from Mount Ida, Crete,” JAS 35, pp. 2918–2926. Simandiraki, A. 2011. “Miniature vessels in Minoan Crete,” in Πεπραγμένα Iʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (3), Chania, pp. 45–58. Simandiraki-Grimshaw, A. 2012. “Miniature Vessels from Petras,” in Petras, Siteia: 25 Years of Excavation and Studies. Acts of a Two-Day Conference Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9–10 October 2010 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 16), M. Tsipopoulou, ed., pp. 225–264. Skordou, M. 2012. “Βίγλια Γραμβούσας Κισάμου: Πρώτη προσέγγιση μιας νέας μινωικής θέσης στη δυτική Κρήτη,” in Andrianakis, Varthalitou, and Tzachili, eds., 2012, pp. 525–536. Soar, K. 2009. “The Archaeology of Minoan Performance,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham. Soetens, S. 2009. “Juktas and Kophinas: Two Ritual Landscapes out of the Ordinary,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel, eds., 2009, pp. 261–268. Soetens, S., J. Driessen, A. Sarris, and S. Topouzi. 2002. “The Minoan Peak Sanctuary Landscape through a GIS Approach,” Archeologia e Calcolatori 13, pp. 161–170. Soetens, S., A. Sarris, and S. Toupouzi. 2006. “Peak Sanctuaries in the Minoan Cultural Landcsape,” in Πεπραγμένα του Θʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (2), Herakleion, pp. 313–327. Soetens, S., A. Sarris, K. Vansteenhuyse, and S. Toupouzi. 2003. “GIS Variations on a Cretan Theme: Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in Foster and Laffineur, eds., 2003, pp. 483–488.

168

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Soles, J.S. 1995. “The Functions of a Cosmological Center: Knossos in Palatial Crete,” in 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 (Aegaeum 12), R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Liège, pp. 405–414. . 2003. Mochlos IA: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri (Prehistory Monographs 7), Philadelphia.

52), A. Phillipa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright, eds., Paris, pp. 521–533. Thomas, J. 1993. “The Hermeneutics of Megalithic Space,” in Interpretative Archaeology (Explorations in Anthropology), C.Y. Tilley, ed., Providence, pp. 73–98. Tilley, C.Y. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments (Explorations in Anthropology), Oxford. . 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture (Social Archaeology), reprint, Oxford.

Spiliotopoulou, A. 2014. “Kophinas Peak Sanctuary. Preliminary Results of the Pottery Study,” CretChron 34, pp. 163–182.

. 2009. Interpreting Landscapes: Geologies, Topographies, Identities (Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 3), Walnut Creek, CA.

. 2015. “Νέα ματιά στο υλικό της κεραμικής και των ανθρωπόμορφων ειδωλίων από το ιερό κορυφής Κόφινα Αστερουσίων,” Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 3. Πρακτικά της 3ης Συνάντησης, Ρέθυμνο, 5–8 Δεκεμβρίου 2013, P. Karanastasi, A. Tzigounaki, and C. Tzigounaki, eds., Rethymnon, pp. 281–292.

Todaro, S. 2012. “Craft Production and Social Practices at Prepalatial Phaistos: The Background to the First ‘Palace,’” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 195–235.

Stai, Ν. 1915. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Κυθήροις,” ArchDelt 1, pp. 191–194. Starkovich, B.M., G.W.L. Hodgins, M.E. Voyatzis, and D.G. Romano. 2013. “Dating Gods: Radiocarbon Dates from the Sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Lykaion (Arcadia, Greece),” in Proceedings of the 21st International Radiocarbon Conference, A.J.T. Jull and C. Hatté, eds., special issue, Radiocarbon 55, pp. 501–513. Stathis, S. 1923. Κυθηραϊκή Ἐπιθεώρησις Aʹ, Athens. Steiner, A. 1992. “Pottery and Cult in Corinth: Oil and Water at the Sacred Spring,” Hesperia, 61, pp. 385–408. Sturmer, V. 2001. “‘Naturkulturäume’ auf Kreta und Thera: Ausstattung, Definitionun Funktion,” in Laffiner and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 69–75. Taylour, W.D., and R. Janko. 2008. “The Bronze Age Burials,” in Taylour and Janko 2008, pp. 121–141. . 2008. Ayios Stephanos: Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia (BSA Suppl. 44), London. Theodoropoulos, D.K. 1973. “Φυσική γεωγραφία τῆς νήσου τών Κυθήρων,” Ph.D.diss., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Theodorou-Mavromatidi, A. 2010. “Defining Ritual Action: A Middle Helladic Pit at the Site of Apollon Maleatas in Epidauros,” in MESOHELLADIKA: 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, 18–12 mars 2006 (BCH Suppl.

Tomkins, P. 2012. “Behind the Horizon: Reconsidering the Genesis and Function of the ‘First Palace’ at Knossos (Final Neolithic IV–Middle Minoan IB),” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2012, pp. 32–80. Tournavitou, I. 2000. “Μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στα Κύθηρα: Η κεραμεική,” in Πεπραγμένα Ηʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (2), Herakleion, pp. 297–316. . 2006. “Ρυτά στα μινωικά ιερά κορυφής: Η περίπτωση των Κυθήρων,” in Πεπραγμένα του Θʹ Διε­ θνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (1), Herakleion, pp. 391–402. . 2009. “Does Size Matter? Miniature Pottery Vessels in Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel, eds., 2009, pp. 213–230. . 2011. “LM IB Pottery from the Colonies: Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, Kythera,” in LM IB Pottery: Relative Chronology and Regional Differences. Acts of a Workshjop Held at the Danish Institute at Athens in Collaboration with the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, 27–29 June 2007 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 11), T.M. Brogan and E. Hallager, eds., Athens, pp. 117–140. . 2014. Κύθηρα: Το μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στον Άγιο Γεώργιο στο Βουνό. 4: Κεραμεική της Εποχής του Χαλκού (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 289), Athens. Trantalidou, K. 2013. “Αρχαιοζωολογικά κατάλοιπα και ζητήματα της ορνιθοπανίδας,” in Sakellarakis, ed., 2013, pp. 463–563. Trantalidou, K., G. Lazaridis, K.-P. Trimmis, K. Gerometta, Y. Maniatis, V. Milidaki, A. Papadea, C.-A.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Zikidi, G. Kotzamani, K. Papayianni, T. Chatzitheodorou, and P. Stefanou. 2013–2015. “Consumed by the Darkness: The Archaeological Assemblages Uncovered During the 2011 Excavation Season at the Kataphygadi Cave, on Kythera,” Aegean Archaeology 12, pp. 65–100. Tsaravopoulos, A. 1997. “Κύθηρα,” ArchDelt 52 (Bʹ 1, Chronika) [2002], pp. 105–108. . 1999. “Graffiti από τα Κύθηρα,” ΗΟΡΟΣ 13, pp. 261–266. . 2009. “Το έργο της Βʹ Εφορείας Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων στο νησί των Κυθήρων, 1994–2003,” in From Mesogeia to Argosaronikos: Bʹ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Anqituities. Research of a Decade, 1994–2003. Proceedings of Conference, Athens, December 18–20, 2003, V. Vasilopoulou and S. Katsarou-Tzeveleki, eds., Athens, pp. 561–576. . 2012. “Χρονικό της αρχαιολογικής έρευνας στα Κύθηρα στις τέσσερις δεκαετίες που ακολούθησαν τη δημοσίευση του έργου των G.L. Huxley και J.N. Coldstream για τα Κύθηρα,” in George Leonard Huxley: Επιστροφή στα Κύθηρα (Εκδόσεις Φίλων Μουσείου Κυθήρων 1), Kythera, pp. 19–26. Tsitsilias, P. 1993. Η Ιστορία των Κυθήρων Aʹ (Εταιρεία Κυθηραϊκών Μελετών 2), Athens. Turner, V. 1974. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society, New York. Tyree, E.L. 2001. “Diachronic Changes in Minoan Cave Cult,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 39–50. . 2006. “Minoan Sacred Caves: The Natural and Political Landscape,” in Πεπραγμένα Θʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (2), Herakleion, pp. 329–342. Tzachili, I. 1992. “Μικροαντικείμενα της ανασκαφής του Ακρωτηρίου,” in Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Είκοσι χρόνια ανασκαφής (1967–1987), C. Doumas, ed., Athens, pp. 139–145.

169

ιερό κορυφής του Βρύσινα και η αναζήτηση του βάθους, Athens. . 2016. Βρύσινας ΙΙ: Η κεραμεική της ανασκαφής 1972–1973: Συμβολή στην ιστορία του ιερού κορυφής, Athens. Tzavella, Ε. 2013. “Οι μαρτυρίες της κεραμικής της ύστερης Ενετικής και νεώτερης περιόδου,” in Sakellarakis, ed., 2013, pp. 267–327. Tzedakis, Y., S. Chryssoulaki, Y. Venieri, and M. Avgouli. 1990. “Les routes minoennes: Le poste de Χοιρομάνδρες et le contrôle des communications,” BCH 114, pp. 43–62. Tzedakis, Y., S. Chryssoulaki, and L. Vokotopoulos. 1999. “Ερευνητικό πρόγραμμα ‘Μινωικοί δρόμοι’,” Κρητική Εστία 7, pp. 317–326. Tzedakis, Y., S. Chryssoulaki, S. Voutsaki, and Y. Venieri. 1989. “Les routes minoennes: Rapport préliminaire. Défense de la circulation ou circulation de la défense?” BCH 113, pp. 43–75. Van de Moortel, A. 2001. “The Areas around the Kiln, and the Pottery from the Kiln and the Kiln Dump,” in A LM IA Ceramic Kiln in South-Central Crete: Function and Pottery Production (Hesperia Suppl. 30), J.W. Shaw, A. Van de Moortel, P.M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou, Princeton, pp. 25–110. Varoufakis, Y. 2012. “Μεταλλουργική μελέτη χάλκινων δοκιμίων Μινωικής εποχής από τα Κύθηρα,” in Sakellarakis, ed., 2012, pp. 239–248. Vasilikou, D. 1995. Ο Μυκηναϊκός πολιτισμός (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 152), Athens. Vavouranakis, G. 2007. Funerary Landscapes East of Lasithi, Crete, in the Bronze Age (BAR-IS 1606), Oxford. Ventris, M., and J. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd ed., Cambridge.

. 2003. “Quantitative Analysis of the Pottery from the Peak Sanctuary at Vrysinas, Rethymnon,” in Foster and Laffineur, eds., 2003, pp. 327–331.

Viglaki, P., and N. Daskalakis. 2016. “Επίθετες πλαστικές μορφές ζώων, πτηνών και όφεων,” in Tzachili 2016, pp. 229–262.

. 2006. “Μεσομινωική κεραμεική από το Βρύσινα: Πρώτες εκτιμήσεις,” Πεπραγμένα του Ηʹ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου Aʹ (1), Herakleion, pp. 25–34.

Warren, P. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge.

. 2007. “Ποικίλα,” in Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Δυτική Οικία. Τράπεζες, λίθινα, ποικίλα (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 246), C.G. Doumas, ed., Athens, pp. 245–282. . 2011. Βρύσινας Ι: Μινωικά εικαστικά τοπία. Τα αγγεία με τις επίθετες πλαστικές μορφές από το

. 1979. “The Miniature Fresco from the West House at Akrotiri, Thera, and Its Aegean Setting,” JHS 99, pp. 115–129. . 1988. Minoan Religion as Ritual Action (SIMAPB 72), Gothenburg. Waterhouse, H., and R. Hope Simpson. 1960. “Prehistoric Laconia: Part I,” BSA 55, pp. 67–107.

170

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

. 1961. “Prehistoric Laconia: Part II,” BSA 56, pp. 114–175. Watrous, L.V. 1992. Kommos III: The Late Bronze Age Pottery, Princeton. . 1994. “Review of Aegean Prehistory III: Crete from the Earliest Prehistory through the Protopalatial Period,” AJA 98, pp. 695–753.

Whittaker, H. 1997. Mycenaean Cult Buildings: A Study of their Architecture and Function in the Context of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean (Monographs of the Norweigan Institute at Athens 1), Bergen. Wyatt, N. 2007. “Religion in Ancient Ugarit,” in Hinnells, ed., 2007, pp. 105–160. Xanthidakis, A. 2001. Λεξικό: ερμηνευτικό και Ετυμολογικό του δυτικοκρητικού γλωσσικού ιδιώματος, Herakleion.

. 1995. “Some Observations on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in 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 (Aegaeum 12), R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Liège, pp. 393–403.

Xypolias, P., W. Dörr, and G. Zulauf. 2006. “Late Carboniferous Plutonism within the Pre-Alpine Basement of the External Hellenides (Kithira, Greece): Evidence from U-Pb Zircon Dating,” Journal of Geological Society, London 162, pp. 539–547.

. 1996. The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro: A Study of Extra-Urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete (Aegaeum 15), Liège.

Yasur-Landau, A. 2016. “The Baetyl and the Stele: Contact and Tradition in Levantine and Aegean Cult,” in Alram-Stern et al., eds., 2016, pp. 415–419.

. 2004. “New Pottery from the Psychro Cave and Its implications for Minoan Crete,” BSA 99, pp. 129–147.

Younger, J.G. 1988. The Iconography of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Sealstones and Finger Rings, Bristol.

Watrous, L.V., and H. Blitzer. 1999. “The Region of Gournia in the Neopalatial Period,” in Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds. Liège, pp. 905–909. Watrous, L.V., D. Xatzi-Vallianou, K. Pope, T. Mourtzas, J. Shay, C. Thomas Shay, J. Bennet, D. Tsoungarakis, E. Angelomati-Tsoungarakis, C. Christophoros, and H. Blitzer. 1993. “A Survey of the Western Mesara Plain in Crete: Preliminary Report of the 1984, 1986, and 1987 Field Seasons,” Hesperia, 62, pp. 191–248.

. 2009. “Tree Tugging and Omphalos Hugging on Minoan Gold Rings,” in D’Agata and Van de Moortel, eds., 2009, pp. 43–49. Younger, J.G., and P. Rehak. 2008. “Minoan Culture: Religion, Burial Customs, and Administration,” in Shelmerdine, ed., 2008, pp. 165–185. Zerner, C. 2008. “The Middle Helladic Pottery, with the Middle Helladic Wares from Late Helladic Deposits and the Potters’ Marks,” in Taylour and Janko 2008, pp. 177–298.

Index

administrative, 149, 151 administrative center, 10–12, 134 adulthood, 106 Aegean, 1, 8, 14–15, 23, 39, 84, 87, 93–94, 116, 123–124, 133, 138, 142–145, 148, 152 Aegean islands, 2, 5, 14, 60, 98, 116, 147–148 Aeginetan, 76 afterlife, 120, 149 agriculture, 15, 104, 113, 125, 127–128, 134–136, 143, 150 agrimi, 13 agro-pastoral, 9, 112 agro-silvopastoral, 128, 136 Aiglapios-Asklepios, 110 Ailias, 100 Akritas, 214 Akrotiri, 14, 55, 94, 98–99 alabaster, 104 alabastron, 84 alcohol, 15, 50, 137 Alea, 110 Alona, 89 Alonaki, 66, 119 alpine, 11 altar, 98, 134, 137

Ammoutses, 6 amphora(e), 41, 63, 72–74, 81–82 oval-mouthed amphora, 41 amulet, 106 Amyklaion, 116 Anatoli Pantotinou Korifi, 89 ancestor(s), 118–119, 121, 149–150 anchorage, 112 ancient, 111, 143 Anemospelia, 89, 94, 119 aniconic, 29 animal, 12–14, 27, 32–33, 95–98, 101–104, 108, 112–113, 115–116, 119, 122, 133–134, 136, 138, 143–144, 146, 148, 151 animal sacrifice, 12, 133 Ano Koufonisi, 90 Ano Vigla, 50, 89, 101 anthropogenic, 11, 33–34 Antikythera, 36–38, 76, 122, 124, 141, 146 antiquity, 111, 134 Aphrodite, 110 apiculture, 116 Apollo Karneios, 110 apotropaic, 118 Arcadia, 14, 147

172

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Archaic, 20–21, 133 Archanes, 99, 124, 149 architecture, 20, 32 architectural model, 96 aromatic, 58 arrowheads, 143 Artemis, 110 ash(es), 13–14, 31–32, 57, 81 Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 13 Aspro Nero, 92 Athena (Lindia), 133, 142 Athens, 142 Acropolis of Athens, 134 Atsipades, 8, 11–12, 18, 29–32, 40, 50, 56–60, 63, 67–68, 89–90, 93–94, 96–97, 101, 134, 138, 148 Attica, 108 Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey (APKAS), 5–6, 117

bowl(s), cont. hemispherical bowl, 41, 52, 70 pedestal bowl, 41, 50, 53 shallow bowl, 13, 50 spouted bowl, 50 Branigan, K., 9 brazier, 36, 39, 41, 57–58, 81, 86 Briault, C., 13, 121 bronze, 7, 12, 24, 29, 54–55, 85, 96, 100–101, 104–106, 113, 133, 136–137, 147 Broodbank, C., 145 Buddhism, 99 bull, 98 burial(s), 7, 34, 39, 42, 50, 54–55, 58, 83, 85–86, 90, 99– 100, 116, 141–144, 149–150, 152 Byzantine Middle Byzantine, 110 post Byzantine, 111

Babylonian, 6 baetyl, 13–15, 29, 102, 108, 137, 139, 142, 151 Bahn, P., 132 Banou, E., 8, 12, 99 barbotine, 78, 87 Barrett, J., 132 Bartsiokas, A., 4 basin(s), 37, 39, 41, 50, 53–54, 79–81, 94–95, 98, 100– 103, 113, 135, 141 ring-handled basin, 41, 50, 54–55, 85, 113, 141 bedrock, 4, 10, 13–14, 20, 22–29, 31–33, 82, 87, 96, 100– 102, 104, 108–109, 111, 116–119, 123–124, 127, 132– 133, 137, 147, 151 beetle, 99 Belmina, 116 Betancourt, P., 60 Bevan, A., 40 biography, 121 bird, 13, 19, 99, 111, 116, 135, 138, 142, 151 Black-Glazed, 20–21, 23–25, 29, 109 Blackman, D., 9 blade, 22, 27, 93–94, 100–101, 103–104, 106, 137 boat, 12 bone, 12, 23, 27, 32, 101, 113, 133–134, 138, 141, 144, 147–148, 151 bonfires, 15 Borgna, E., 135 bovine, 12, 96 bowl(s), 37, 39, 50, 52–53, 77, 81, 86, 95, 104, 113 bird’s nest bowl, 85, 104, 116 blossom bowl, 104, 126 bowl with everted/flaring rim, 41, 52 conical bowl, 41, 50–52, 77, 135 deep bowl, 49, 76, 81 handled bowl, 50

Cadogan, G., 96 cairn, 20–21, 28–29, 32–33 Calcite-Tempered fabric, 38 Çatalhöyük, 123 cave, 4–5, 116–119, 123, 127, 142–144, 146, 148 cave burial/grave, 6 Chousti cave (Crete), 119 Chousti cave (Kythera), 5, 123 Daskalio cave, 148 Hagia Sofia Cave (Mylopotamos), 1, 5 Hagia Sofia Cave (Kalamos), 5, 7, 117, 125, 128–129, 146, 148 Idaean cave, 119 Katafygadi Cave, 1, 4, 7, 22, 111–112, 117–120, 122– 125, 127–128, 140–144, 146, 148–152 Koumelo cave, 148 Psychro cave, 64, 74, 94 sacred cave, 8–10, 60, 83, 86, 93, 94, 119–120, 123, 125– 126, 128–129, 146, 148, 150 cemetery, 34, 40, 42, 47–48, 72, 85–86, 100, 108, 118–120, 123, 141, 149–150 centralization, 10–11, 147 cerauniae, 139 chalk, 25, 89, 91 chalcopyrite, 105 Chalkos, 105 Chania, 3, 6 chapel, 111 chasm, 10, 29, 123, 134 Cherry, J., 9 chert, 22, 26–27, 37, 91–93, 99, 102, 113, 139–140, 143– 144, 152 Chert Ware, 38 Chios, 123 Chora, 124

INDEX

chthonic, 50, 59, 117–121, 123, 140, 142, 149, 152 Chryssoulaki, S., 90 Classical, 20–21, 29, 32, 101, 107, 109–111, 125, 134, 137, 139, 142–143, 148 clay ball(s), 12, 25–27, 90, 98–99, 103, 113, 139–140, 152 cliff, 3–4, 10, 127 cloud, 115, 123, 133, 138–139, 143, 151–152 coarse, 21, 34–38, 53, 57, 60, 109 coiling, 6 Coldstream, N., 37, 116 colonization of the landscape, 7, 22, 117, 119 colony, 145, 146 conglomerate, 4, 89, 91 constellation, 140 container, 34 cooking, 36–37, 39, 56, 59–63, 74, 76, 80–82, 85, 87, 109, 113, 117, 134–136, 141, 148, 151 copper, 103, 105 cosmos, 122, 136 cosmology, cosmological, 120, 125–126, 146 Crete, Cretan, 1–11, 14, 18, 29, 33–34, 38–40, 44–47, 50, 52–55, 57–60, 63–64, 68, 73–74, 77–78, 80–87, 90, 92, 94–100, 103–108, 110, 113–117, 119–120, 122– 128, 131, 133–140, 142, 144–151 Central Crete, 9–10, 108, 119, 129, 146, 148, 150 East Crete, 10–11, 112, 129, 147, 149–150 West Crete, 10, 36–38, 141, 146–147 crevice, 13 crocus, 116, 125–126, 135, 137 crystal, 99 cup(s), 37, 39, 43–50, 77, 79, 81–82, 86, 94, 104, 109, 113, 132–133, 135, 140 bell cup, 39, 41, 43–44 carinated cup, 39, 41, 44–45, 85, 87 conical cup, 35, 39–45, 50–51, 77–78, 81, 83–84, 86– 87, 94–95, 102, 104, 113, 135, 141 cup with horizontal handle, 49–50 hemispherical cup, 39, 41, 45, 47–49, 52, 77, 81, 86, 113 stemmed cup, 39, 41, 49, 86 straight-sided cup, 39, 41, 44–47, 77–78, 80, 81, 85, 87, 113 Vapheio cup, 39, 46–47, 55, 81, 85 cure, 12 Cyclades, 6, 90, 94–95, 108 dam, 115 dance, 15 Daskalio Kavos, 90, 139 decoration, decorated, 34–35, 45–46, 49 deity, 12–15, 55, 67, 82, 84, 86, 96–97, 103, 106, 108, 110, 116, 118–121, 126, 128–129, 132–133–140, 142–144, 148, 150–152 Demeter, 7, 142

173

demonic, 117 deposit, 6, 23–25, 27, 30–32, 38, 141 Diakofti, 123 Dietler, M., 135 Digenis, Mount, 125 Dioskouroi, 110 dish, 50 divinity, 15, 29, 90, 102, 106, 118, 120–123, 126–127, 137, 140, 142–143, 151–152 Diwos, 142–143, 152 dolomite, 4, 10, 116 Doric, 110 double axe, 144 Drapanokefalo, 89, 147 Drymonas, Mount, 1, 124–125, 128, 151 Dull Painted Ware, 76 Durkheim, E., 131 Early Bronze (EB), 5, 34, 116, 148 Early Bronze Age (EBA), 2, 93, 107–108, 123 Early Cycladic (EC), 84, 90, 100 Early Helladic (EH), 4–6, 34, 38, 53, 107–109, 111 Early Minoan (EM), 5–6, 8–9, 15, 34, 38, 53, 56, 84, 90, 108, 116, 119 Eastern Mediterranean, 93, 120 ecology, 11 ecstasy, ecstatic, 15, 137 Efentis, C., 89 egalitarian, 135–136 Egypt, 9, 97, 125 Elafonisos, 124 Eliade, M., 135 Elis, 14, 147 Emporio, 123 Epano Zakros, 64 Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (26th), 3 Epic of Gilgamesh, 120 Epidauros, 108 epiphany, 13–15, 108, 123, 126, 137–140, 143–144, 151–152 equinox, 125 erosion, 6, 20, 22–23, 28–29, 32, 34, 124 esoteric, 123, 137–138, 151 Etiani Kefala, 50, 89, 97 Evans, A., 8 ewer(s), 41, 63–65 exotic, 86, 93, 106 extramural, 7 extra-settlement, 8 Faneromeni, 93 farmstead, 5, 7, 22, 117, 135, 152 Faro, E., 149

174

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Faure, P., 125 feast, 15, 50, 61, 67, 81–82, 86, 126, 133–135, 138, 141– 143, 147–149, 151 fertility, 12–13, 96, 117–118, 127–128, 133–135, 137–138, 140, 142–143, 150, 152 festival, 15, 120, 126, 135–137 figurine, 12, 14, 18, 24–25, 49–50, 90, 95–100, 102–105, 113, 133, 140, 144, 146–147 Filerimos, Mount, 14, 147 Filioremos, 10–11, 67, 98, 101, 124 Final Neolithic (FN), 4–5, 8–9, 38, 90 Fine ware, 20–21, 34–36, 42–56, 58–59, 64–69, 71–73, 76–79, 82, 98 finger impression, 61–62, 65, 71, 74–75, 78–80 fire, 13, 15, 18, 20, 32, 81, 87, 111, 118, 134, 138–139, 147– 148, 151 fissure, 10 flaked tools, 92–93 flintknapping, 92 Flomis stream, 2–3 flower pot, 51 flysch, 4 Foinikies, 127 fortified, 112 fresco, 11, 13–14, 55, 137 funerary, 55, 80, 116, 119, 140–141 Galatas, 15 genii, 133 geology, geoligical, 10, 22, 37, 89, 93, 102, 116, 139 Geometric, 110 Giali, 84, 93 glass, 20, 23, 25, 101, 109, 111 glazed tiles, 111 glyptic, 15 god/goddess, 15, 140, 142–143 gold, 12 gold ring, 15, 138, 140 Gonies, 124 Gournia, 15, 116 Gournos, 67, 81, 98, 119 Gra Lygia, 116 Great Court, 13 Great Goddess, 15 Greco-Roman, 20 Greece/Greek (mainland), 2, 5, 14, 34, 49, 76, 80, 85–86, 95, 100, 104–105, 107–108, 110, 119, 125, 133, 137, 139, 147–148 griffin, 13 grinder, 93–94, 104 grog, 38 Gypsades, 13, 137 Gyristi, 11, 45–46, 48, 53, 60, 67–68, 89, 94, 96

Hagia Eirini, 14, 46, 50, 53, 59, 66, 94, 116 Hagia Elessa, 111, 125 Hagia Kyriaki Gremnakas, 10, 89–90 Hagia Moni, 111, 123 Hagia Pelagia, 37, 88 Hagia Triada, 14–15, 42, 47, 53, 57, 67–68 Hagiofarango, 147 Hagioi Kosmas and Damianos, 111 Hagios Athanasios, 6, 117 Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, 1, 6–8, 11–12, 14, 17–18, 31– 32, 34–38, 40, 42–53, 55–61, 63–68, 70–86, 89, 93– 101, 103–113, 117, 120, 123–125, 127–129, 132–133, 135, 137–138, 140–142, 144–151 Hagios Georgios (Crete), 116 Hagios Georgios (Kythera), 111 Hagios Georgios Kolokythas, 6 Hagios Georgios tou Vounou, 111 Hagios Mammas, 89 Hagios Stefanos, 37, 47, 49, 53, 55, 64, 68, 70, 76, 116 Haggis, D., 9 hallucinogenic, 15 hamlet, 5, 22, 135, 152 hammerstone, 93–94 heaven, 120, 143 Hellenistic, 20, 101, 109–110 heterotopia, 123, 139, 142, 152 Heracles, 110 heraldic, 13 herder, herding, 108 , 115 Hermes, 110 hero, 137 hierarchy, 10–11 history, historic, 21, 34, 120 Hitchcock, L., 137 Hittites, 119, 133 hollow, 10, 13, 29 homogenization, 9 honey, 50, 84, 133 Hood, S., 100 horns of consecration, 12–13, 24–25, 77, 97–98, 103–104, 113, 124–125, 136, 144, 147 humus, 31 hunting, 111, 116, 138, 148 iconography, 10, 13–14, 29, 120, 126, 133, 137, 140, 143 Ida, 60, 93 identity, 9–10, 135 ideology, 131, 144, 146, 153 idiom, 56 idiosyncrasy, 54, 85, 97, 103, 123, 129, 142–144, 146–147 idol, 13 incense burner, 57–58, 81, 86, 137 inclusions, 35, 37–38, 42, 54, 56, 99

INDEX

inequality, 136 ingot, 7, 103, 105 institution, institutionalization, 10, 12, 131 intervisibility, 11, 98, 120, 124–125, 127, 147, 151 intramural, 7 Ionian Sea, 1 Ios, 116 jar(s), 36–37, 39, 63, 67–68, 70–72, 74, 76–80, 82, 87, 113, 133, 135 bridge-spouted jar, 41, 63, 67–69, 76, 80, 82, 87 collar-necked jar, 41, 71 hole-mouthed jar, 41, 65, 70, 85 neckless/pithoid jar, 41, 74–75 piriform jar, 41, 70, 72 ribbed jar, 6 stirrup jar, 72 wide-mouthed jar, 71–72 jewelry, 12 Jones, D., 86 jug, 35–37, 39, 41, 63–64, 66, 68, 72–73, 76–82, 84–87, 113, 133, 135, 141 juglet, 35, 41–42, 63, 66, 77, 80, 82–84, 133 jugs with beaked/cutaway spouts, 41, 63–64 low-necked jug, 141 low-spouted jug, 63, 65–66, 68, 85 spouted jug, 95 trefoil-type jug, 64 Juktas, 8–13, 29, 40, 44, 50, 56–60, 63, 66–68, 89–90, 93– 93, 95, 97–101, 108, 119–120, 124, 127, 140, 146–150 Jurassic, 10 Kalamos, 36, 128 kalathos, 37, 39, 41, 50, 55–56, 77, 81, 85–86, 113, 135 Kalymnos, 148 Kalyvomouri bothros, 119, 149 kantharos, 76 Karavas, 125 Karetsou, A., 99, 152 Karnava, A., 142 Karpathos, 7 Karphi, 12, 50, 56, 67, 83, 89, 100 Kastraki, 5 Kastri, 1, 5–7, 34, 36–38, 40, 42–60, 63–66, 68, 71–80, 82–83, 85–86, 89, 93, 95–96, 100, 103–104–106, 113, 116, 126, 129, 141–142, 145–146, 151 Kato Chora, 5, 127 Kato Syme, 9, 60, 83, 86, 89, 93–94, 98, 100, 120 Kato Zakros, 13, 29, 126, 137 Kea, 7, 14, 46, 94, 105, 116, 147 Kephala, 50 Kephala Vasiliki, 15 Keria, 29, 89–90, 96–97, 119

175

kernos, 84–85, 90, 99 Keros, 90, 100, 108, 139 Kiriatzi, E., 37 Kissamos, 124 knapper, 103 knife, 100–101, 104, 137 knob, 46, 60–62, 64, 78–79, 85 Knossos, Knossian, 6–7, 9, 11, 13–14, 43, 50, 64–66, 68, 74, 94–95, 100, 116, 120, 133, 135, 141, 144–146, 150 Kommos, 50, 56, 58, 60, 64–66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 78 Kophinas, 10–12, 33, 40, 42–44, 46, 48, 53, 56–60, 63, 67–68, 86, 94, 98–100, 110, 119 Kopida, 89 Korakomouri, 44, 59–60, 63, 67–68 Korfi tou Stavromenou, 89 Korifi Plakias-Preveli, 89 Koumasa, 94 Kynortion, Mount, 108 Kyriakidis, E., 12, 86, 96 Kyrou, A., 3, 5, 17 Kythera, Kytherian, 1–7, 17–19, 22–23, 34, 36–38, 44– 47, 49, 53–56, 58, 60–61, 66, 68, 70–71, 76–80, 82– 89, 93–97, 99–100, 102–103, 105–106, 108, 110–115, 117–120, 122–129, 131, 133–136, 140–153 Kythera Island Project (KIP), 5–6, 19, 22, 34, 36–37, 112, 117, 125, 145 Laconia, 4, 7, 37, 47, 49, 55, 94, 100, 105, 116, 124 ladle, 104 lamp, 12, 39, 41, 57, 81, 86, 104, 109, 142 lapis lacedaemonius, 7, 104–105 larnakes, 7 Lasithi, 112 Late Antiquity, 110 Late Bronze (LB), 5, 34, 46, 116, 148 Late Bronze Age (LBA), 1, 92, 105, 108, 148 Late Cycladic (LC), 116 Late Helladic (LH), 14–15, 34, 36, 38, 49, 53, 68, 108, 116 Late Minoan (LM), 4–10, 13–15, 18, 34, 36–40, 42–77, 79–83, 87–88, 90–101, 103, 108–109, 112, 115, 117, 140, 148, 150, 152 Lavrion, 6, 105 Lazarianika, 3–4, 6, 116, 118, 120, 122–123, 126, 141– 142, 149 lead, 100 Lefka Ori, 124, 126 Leonhard, R., 4 Leska, 1–4, 17–23, 30–40, 42–61, 63–68, 70–90, 92–115, 117–128, 131–144, 147–153 libation, 12, 15, 39, 63, 68, 82–84, 86, 95, 102, 126, 132– 134, 138, 141, 143, 148, 152 libation table, 85, 94, 95, 102, 113 lid, 63, 85, 93–94

176

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

Light Brown fabric, 20 lighting, 107, 133, 139, 152 Liliano, 10 lime, 21 limekiln, 21 limestone, 4, 10, 31–32, 38, 89–90, 94–95, 104, 112, 116– 118, 123–124, 139–140 liminal, liminality, 11, 14, 117–118, 120, 122, 140, 143, 151 Limnionas, 112, 127–128 Linear A, 7, 10, 12, 104, 133, 142, 146 Linear B, 133–134, 142 lithic, 89, 92, 139 Livadi, 6 localism, 150 Lykaion, Mount, 14, 147 magic, 93, 123, 139–140, 152 Maleas, 105, 124 Malia, 9, 15 marble, 4, 25, 90, 94–95, 102–104, 106, 113 Marinatos, N., 15 Marketou, T., 14 marl, 4 Marmara, 95 Mashu, Mount, 120 materiality, 121, 131–132 Matt Painted, 76 Mauss, M., 137 Maza, 11, 63, 100 meat, 50 medical, 93 Medieval, 4 post-Medieval, 20–21, 107, 110–111 Mediterranean climate, 5, 115 Megalos Rozitis, 89 Melos, 15, 93–94, 103, 105 mementos, 123 Menelaion, 37, 76 Mermigkari, Mount, 2–4, 6–7, 18, 22, 61, 102, 108–109, 112, 115–120, 122–127, 137, 139, 141, 143–144, 146– 147, 150, 152 Mesara, 147 Mesopotamia, 119, 125 Messenia, 14, 147 metal, 12, 20, 22, 45, 55, 64, 84–85, 89, 96, 100, 102–103, 105–106, 136, 144, 147 metamorphic, 4 metaphor, 15, 117, 121, 139–140, 144, 152–153 metaphysical, 122 meteorology, 142 Metzolati, 119 mica, 36, 38

Middle Bronze (MB), 34, 148 Middle Bronze Age (MBA), 1, 45, 70, 79, 108 Middle Cycladic (MC), 116 Middle Helladic (MH), 49, 53, 55, 64, 68, 70, 76, 108, 116 Middle Minoan (MM), 4, 6–11, 14, 34, 36–40, 42, 44– 48, 50–54, 56–83, 87–88, 90–101, 103–104, 107– 109, 112, 116, 132–133, 140, 148–149, 152 Mikri Vigla, 14 military, 100, 106, 112–113, 137, 143, 152 mimesis, 152–153 miniature, miniaturization, 12, 42, 48, 58–59, 81–86, 94, 100–101, 104, 113, 135, 137, 144, 146, 152 Minoan, 2, 4, 8, 10, 14–15, 17, 20, 22–26, 34, 39, 44, 50, 54–55, 63, 76, 79, 83, 95, 97, 100–101, 108–112, 115– 116, 120, 124–127, 131–133, 135–139, 142–143, 145– 146, 148 Minoan colonization, 7 Minoan religion, 8, 14–15 Minoanized, Minoanization, 5–8, 17–18, 145 Subminoan, 10 Mitata, 6, 36, 102, 104–105, 125 Mochlos, 94, 116 modern, 22, 28–29, 32, 101, 107, 111 Modi, 10–11, 89, 100, 125 monochrome, 34, 42, 45–46, 48, 51–52, 55, 58–59, 61, 65–66, 72, 77–78, 85 Moss, M., 142 mottled, 4 mudstone, 89, 91–92 Mudstone ware, 6, 20, 22, 35–38, 42–44, 47, 51–58, 60–62, 64–66, 68–74, 76–80, 82, 117 Muhly J., 95 Municipality of Kythera, 3 music, 15 Mycenae, Mycenaean, 4, 14, 34, 36–39, 55, 85, 134–135 pre-Mycenaean, 147 Mylopotamos, 2–5, 7, 22, 102, 104, 111–113, 116–118, 122–123, 127, 134, 138–139 myth, mythology, 110, 119, 121, 121, 133, 143, 149–152 Naram-Sin of Akkad, 6 Naxos, 14 Near East, 9, 97, 125 Neolithic, 18, 34, 79, 92, 107, 123 Neopalatial, 4, 6–7, 9–13, 15, 17, 22, 34, 36–38, 40, 46, 51, 56–58, 60–61, 64, 68, 77, 81, 83, 85–88, 90, 94– 95, 97–100, 105, 108–109, 112–113, 115–119, 125– 126, 129, 132–133, 140–143, 145–151 Nerokourou, 43, 68, 72–74 Nichoria, 76 Niemeier, W.-D., 13 Nowicki, K., 12, 18, 121

INDEX

oatmeal, 37 obsidian, 22, 27, 84, 93–94, 103, 105–106 offering, 7, 12–13, 15, 38–39, 55, 63, 67, 82, 90, 92, 100, 102–103, 109, 123, 126, 132–138, 140–141, 144, 150, 152 offering table, 12 Olonos-Pindos Zone, 4, 92 Olympian gods, 133 Orange ware, 20, 38, 45, 47, 49, 57, 64–65, 79 Pacheia Ammos, 116 palace, 10–14, 83, 120, 125, 133–134, 140, 145, 149 Palaikastro, 43, 45, 47, 51, 56, 64–65, 67–68, 74, 94, 124, 149 Palaiokastro, 110–111, 124 Palaiopolis, 7 Paliochora, 6 palm tree, 13 Panagia Myrtidiotissa, 111 panopticon, 151 panoramic, 11 Parnon, Mount, 4, 124 pastoral, pastoralism, 9, 15, 108, 112–113, 116–118, 123, 128, 134–135, 143, 148, 151 Patema, 119, 149 path(s), pathway(s), 19, 22, 108, 119–123, 124, 126–128, 132, 139–140, 143, 147–148, 151–152 Patsos, 94 Patton, K., 133 Pavlopetri, 37 peak sanctuary, 1–2, 6–15, 17–18, 22, 29–33, 39–40, 42, 46–47, 49–50, 53, 56–60, 63, 66–68, 73–75, 78, 81, 83–84, 86–87, 89–90, 92, 94–97, 99–101, 103, 106, 108–110, 112–114, 119–121, 123–129, 133–143, 145–153 Peatfiled, A., 8, 11–12, 15, 90, 96, 121, 125, 127, 133 pebble, 12, 18, 23–27, 89–93, 99, 102, 104, 113, 139–140, 144, 152 Pediada, 93 pendant, 24, 100, 103, 136–137 Peloponnese, 1, 5, 86, 115, 122 peribolos, 13 perfume, 84 peripheral, 12, 33–34, 61, 81, 145 pestle, 93 Petrocheilos, I., 4, 116 petrographic, 12, 34, 36–37 Petsophas, 10–13, 40, 56–57, 59–60, 63, 67, 83, 94, 97– 98, 100, 119, 124–125, 140, 149 Phaistos, 9 phenomenology, 121 Phourni, 99, 119, 149 Phylakopi, 15

177

phyllites, 4 pilgrim, 42, 88, 120–123, 126, 129, 132, 140, 151–152 pin, pinhead, 24, 100–101, 103, 136–137 piratical raids, 111 Piskokefalo, 97 Piso Pygadi, 3, 122, 127 pithos(oi), 38, 53, 63, 67, 74–76, 79–80, 82, 113, 118, 133, 135, 141 collar-necked pithos, 41, 75 pithos burial, 4, 6, 116, 141, 146 plastic decoration, 45, 49, 60–61, 77–78, 140 plate(s), 39, 41, 50, 56–57, 59, 81, 87, 132–133 Pliny, 139 poles, 13 pollution, 134 poros/pori, 94–95, 102–105, 113 Poros, 13 Poseidon Gaiochos, 110 postdepositional, 18, 20, 22–23, 27–29, 32–34, 124 post-excavation, 22 posthole, 32 Potamos, 4, 6, 37, 88–89, 95, 102–103, 105, 124–125, 127 Potnia, 119 pottery, 5–7, 12, 33–40, 42, 50–51, 54–56, 58–60, 76, 82–87, 94, 102, 104, 113–114, 124, 135–136, 141– 142, 146–147 praxis, 121 prehistory, prehistoric, 14, 20–22, 24–25, 27, 32, 34, 100–102, 105, 132, 142 Prepalatial, 7, 9, 13–14, 76, 83, 90, 119, 149–150 Preston L., 4, 116 priest, 10 Prinias, 10–11, 50, 58, 89 Profetes Elias, Mount, 124 prosperity, 12 protection, 12 Protogeometric (PG), 18, 110 Protopalatial, 4, 6–7, 9–15, 30, 34, 36–38, 44–46, 50, 53, 56–58, 76, 80–81, 83, 85–87, 90, 93, 95–96, 99, 108, 112–113, 115, 119, 129, 132–133, 140, 147–152 purification, 133 push-through handle, 62, 76–77, 80, 87 Pylos, 133 pyramidal, 29 pyre, 13 Pyrgos, 10–11, 29, 50, 97–98, 110 quarry, 104 quartz, quartzite, 4, 92 rain, rainfall, 5, 90, 123, 126–128, 133–134, 139–140, 143, 151–152

178

T H E S A C R E D L A N D S C A P E AT L E S K A A N D M I N O A N K Y T H E R A

rebirth, 125 Red Micaceous ware, 6, 20, 22, 35–38, 42–44, 48, 51–54, 57–58, 60–66, 68–78, 80, 82, 99–100, 117 regeneration, 119, 125, 135, 143–144, 152 regional (peak sanctuaries), regionalism, 9, 12–13, 86, 150 relief decoration, 46, 59, 70, 72, 78–79 religion, 8–9, 11, 87, 96–97, 103, 108–111, 119–121, 123, 125–126, 131–134, 136–138, 142–147, 150–151 Renfrew, C., 90, 139 Rethymnon, 3 Rhodes, 3, 14, 116, 147–148 rhyton, rhyta, 13, 29, 39, 41, 58–59, 80–81, 84–86, 113, 126, 135, 137, 140 conical rhyton, 59 ostrich egg rhyton, 59 ovoid rhyton, 58–59 ring, 13 rite of passage, 137, 152 Rizes, 3, 22, 122–123, 127 Rizitika, 3 Rizoviglo, 89 Roman, 101, 110, 139 rosso antico, 7 , 94, 104–105 rural, 9–10, 12–13, 82, 129, 137, 152–153 Rutkowski, B., 15, 29, 96, 140 Rutter, J., 55 sacred enclosure, 9, 86, 93 sacrifice, 12, 15, 133–134, 138–139, 148, 151 Sakellarakis, Y., 96, 123, 145 sand, 38 Sand Tempered fabric, 38, 45, 76 sandstone, 4 Schachermeyer, F., 55 schematic, 13, 49–50, 78, 140 schist, 36, 89, 92–93, 99, 102 sealing, 13 sealstone, 15 seed, 12 semiotics, 137, 151–152 settlement pattern, 6, 7 serpentinite 13, 94–95, 104 Shaft Graves, 55 sheet, 29, 100, 103 sherd(s), 3–4, 6, 14, 18, 20–22, 24–29, 32–38, 59, 63, 66– 68, 72, 74, 77, 102, 109–110, 117, 123, 132 shrine, 10–11, 40, 42–44, 46, 48, 53, 56–57, 60, 67–68, 94, 99–100, 109, 119, 137, 150 Sianna, 3 silver, 12 single graves, 7 Siphnos, 105 Sissi, 116

Siteia, 3 Skarkos, 116 skeuomorphism, 7, 45–46, 54–55, 59, 64, 83–86, 104, 141, 144, 146, 152 Skoulantrianika, 3–4, 22 sky, 11, 14–15, 19, 32, 110, 118–119, 123, 126, 128, 134, 138–140, 142–143, 152 slag, 22 slip, 38 snake, 46, 49–50, 59, 78, 140, 152 Soar, K., 121 Soetens, S., 11, 90, 133, 139 soil, 19–28, 30–33 solar, 127, 142 Sparta, Spartan, 110 spear, 143 specialized, 55–56, 58, 77, 81, 86, 102, 104, 108, 113 speleothems, 118–119, 123, 142, 144, 148 Spili Vorizi, 63, 89–90 spring(s), 2, 8, 90, 119, 128, 134, 139 stalactites, 118, 148 stalagmites, 118, 148 stand, 85 standardization, 7, 12, 39, 86, 108 statue, 29 steatite, 7, 99, 104 stellar, 142 stone throne, 13 stone tool(s), 20, 27, 32, 93, 102–103, 113, 136, 147 stone vase/vessel(s), 22, 24–27, 29, 32, 94–95, 102–103, 113, 136 Stou Mamaloukou, 93 Stous Athropolithous, 9 strainer, 59 Strasigadika, 3–4 stratigraphy, 20, 36–38, 82 sun, 97, 118, 120, 123, 125, 128, 142, 151 survey, 17–23, 26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 76, 105, 109, 111–112, 123–124, 128 synecdoche, 139 syntax, 55, 103, 142, 144 taboo, 118, 134, 138, 148, 151 Tainaron, 122, 124, 127 Taygetos, Mount, 124, 126 technology, technological, 34 tempered, 38 terra rossa, 31 terrace(s), 2, 10, 27, 29, 31, 90, 118 natural terrace, 25, 27–30, 124 terrace wall, 6–7, 112 Thera, 98–99, 115, 120, 126, 137 Tholos, 37, 49, 54 Throne Room, 13

INDEX

thunder, thunderbolt, 112, 126, 139–140, 143, 151–152 Thylakas, 57 tile(s), 20–21, 29, 32, 109 Tilley, J., 121 Tis Ouranias to Phrydi, 149 tomb(s), 9, 37, 42, 45, 49–51, 54–58, 65–66, 68, 84, 86, 93, 95, 103–104, 126, 141–142, 144, 150 chamber tomb, 6–7, 44–45, 54, 83, 113, 116, 125, 141, 144, 146 tholos tomb, 9, 76, 108 trade, 96 transhumance, 9 Traostalos, 8, 10–12, 29, 31–32, 44, 50, 57–60, 67–68, 89, 92, 94, 98, 100, 114, 119–120, 149 tray, 56, 132–133, 141 trench, 17 Trianda, 14, 116 Triassic, 10 tripartite, 13 Tripartite Shrine, 13 tripod vessel(s), 20, 22, 34, 36, 40–41, 50, 59–63, 76–82, 85, 87, 135–136, 141 Tripolis Zone, 4 Troullos, 14, 94, 147 Tsaravopoulos, A., 1, 3–4, 17, 22 tumbler, 39, 41, 43, 85, 104 typology, 34 Ugarit, 119–120, 125 underworld, 120, 125, 143–144 unguent, 133 unification, 11 University of the Peloponnese, 8 Vapheio, 94 Vasiliki, 15 vegetable, 50 Venetian, 4, 110 viewshed, 125, 151 Vigla, 124, 128–129

179

Vigla-Gramvoussa, 38 villa, 10, 14 volcano, volcanic, 93, 115 Vorizi, 11, 29 Voskero, 119 Vothonas, 95 Vrysinas, 10–13, 18, 20, 32–33, 40, 42–46, 48–50, 56– 60, 63–64, 66–68, 73–75, 78, 80, 83, 86, 88–89, 94, 96–98, 100–101, 134, 138, 140, 148–149, 151 Vythoulas, 6 wall painting, 14–15 Warren, P., 15 warrior, 106, 143 Watrous, V., 15 weapon, 12 weather, 20, 22, 112, 115, 126–127, 136, 140, 142, 150–151 wheel, 6 whetstone, 105 wind, 5, 22–23, 32, 107, 109–110, 123, 126–127, 133, 138, 151 wine, 39, 63, 84, 133, 137 workshop, 12, 38, 42, 51, 55–56, 58, 81–82, 84, 93, 95, 104–105, 113 Xerokambos Vigla, 89 Xykefalo, 9, 50, 58, 67, 97 Yellow Minyan, 76 Zakros, 116, 149–150 Zeus, 110, 119, 139, 142–143 Proto-Zeus, 143 Zeus Hypatos, 134 Ziros, 116 Ziros Korphi tou Mare, 10 Zominthos, 119 Zou, 116 Zou Prinias, 57–58

Figures

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Conical cups (P1–P16) and bell cups (P17–P20). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Tumblers (P21–P23), carinated cups (P24, P25), and straight-sided cups (P26–P37, P40–P43). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Vapheio (P44), hemispherical (P45–P56), and stemmed cups (P57). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Conical bowls (P61–P68), hemispherical bowl (P69), bowls with everted/flaring rim (P70–P73), and pedestal bowls (P74, P75). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. Basins (P76–P80, P81 [profile left; view of rim from above, right], P82, P83), ring-handled basins (P84– P86), and kalathoi (P87, P88). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 6

Figure 6. Kalathoi (P89, P90), plates (P91–P93), lamps/braziers (P94–P96), rhyta (P97, P100), and tripod vessels (P101–P105). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 7

Figure 7. Tripod cooking vessels (P106–P120). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 8

(1:2)

(1:2)

(1:2)

Figure 8. Tripod cooking vessels (P121–P123, P130–P132). Scale as indicated. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 9

Figure 9. Tripod cooking vessels (P133–P135), jug with cutaway spout (P136), and ewers (P140–P144). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 10

Figure 10. Low-spouted jugs (P145, P146), juglets (P149–P153), and bridge-spouted jars (P154–P160). Scale 1:1 unless otherwise indicated. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 11

Figure 11. Bridge-spouted jars (P161–P170) and hole-mouthed jars (P171, P172, P176). Scale 1:1. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 12

Figure 12. Hole-mouthed jars (P177, P178), collar-necked jar (P179), wide-mouthed jars (P180–P185), piriform jars (P186–P188), and jugs/amphorae (P189, P190). Scale 1:1 unless otherwise indicated. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 13

Figure 13. Jugs/amphorae (P192–P198), amphorae (P199, P200) and neckless/pithoid jars with everted rim (P201– P203). Scale 1:1 unless otherwise indicated. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

FIGURE 14

Figure 14. Neckless/pithoid jars with everted rim (P204–P210), pithos (P211), stone vessels (SV3, SV5 [view from above left, profile right]), and horns of consecration (F5 [bottom view at left]). Scale 1:1 unless otherwise indicated. Drawings M. Georgiadis.

Plates

PLATE 1

Plate 1A. View of Mt. Mermigkari from the east, showing the peaks of Mermigkari (left), Katafygadi (center), and Leska (right). Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 1B. View of the Leska peak from the east. The white portions demarcate the cliffs/leskes. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 2

Plate 2A. Entrance to the Katafygadi Cave from the east. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 2B. View of the settlement of Kastri from the north. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 3

Plate 3A. Part of the Kastri cemetery from the south, with the Hagios Georgios chapel visible on the mountain peak in the background. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 3B. Hagios Georgios sto Vouno from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 4

Plate 4A. Trench 1, spit 1, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 4B. Trench 1, spit 2, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 5

Plate 5A. Trench 1, spit 3, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 5B. Trench 2, spit 1, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 6

Plate 6A. Trench 2, spit 2, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 6B. Trench 2, spit 3, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 7

Plate 7A. Trench 3, spit 1, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 7B. Trench 3, spit 2, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 8

Plate 8A. Trench 3, spit 3, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 8B. Trench 3, spit 4, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 9

T.3

0

1m T.4

Plate 9A. Final depths of T.3 and T.4 from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 9B. Trench 4, spit 1, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 10

0 Plate 10A. Trench 4, spit 2, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 10B. Trench 5, spit 1, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

1m

PLATE 11

Plate 11A. Trench 5, spit 2, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 11B. Trench 6, spit 1, from the east. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 12

Plate 12A. Trench 6, eastern part, spit 2, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 12B. Trench 6, western part, spit 3, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 13

Plate 13A. Final depths of T.6 from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 13B. Trench 7, spit 1, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 14

0

1m

Plate 14A. Final depths of T.7 and T.8 from the east. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 14B. Trench 8, spit 1, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 15

Plate 15A. Cairn 1 from the east. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 15B. Final depth of Cairn 1 from the west. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 16

Plate 16A. Cairn 2 from the west. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 16B. Final depth of Cairn 2 from the east. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 17

0

0

5 cm

5 cm

Plate 17. Pottery from Leska: Black-Glazed sherd from T.1, Black-Glazed handle from T.3, and Black-Glazed tile from Cairn 2; conical cup P15; straight-sided cups P29, P37–P39, and P43; cups with horizontal handles P58– P60; lamps P95 and P96; rhyta P97–P100; tripod cooking vessels P104, P112, P118, P122–P127, and P130. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 18

0

5 cm

Plate 18. Pottery from Leska: tripod cooking vessels P131, P132, P134; jugs with cutaway spout P136, P138, P139; ewer P140; juglets P147 and P148; bridge-spouted jars P154, P163, P165, and P166; hole-mouthed jars P171– P175; wide-mouthed jar P180; piriform jars P186 and P188. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 19

0

5 cm

Plate 19. Pottery from Leska: jug/amphora P190; amphora P200; neckless/pithoid jars P206, P207, P209, P210; vessels with push-through handles P212 and P213; jug with painted decoration P214; vessels with plastic decoration P215–P217; vessels with relief decoration P218–P224; vessel with incised decoration P225. Photos M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 20

0

0

5 cm

0

5 cm

5 cm

Plate 20. Small finds from Leska: pebbles (Pb4–Pb6, Pb21, Pb24, Pb25); pieces of chert (Ch3, Ch5, Ch6, Ch 8); stone tools (ST1–ST3) and vessels (SV1–SV3, SV5); clay animal figurine (F1), horns of consecration (F2–F5 [side view]), and balls (CB1–CB5); bronze pin (M1), basin (M2), pendant(?) (M3), and knife blade (miniature) (M4). Photos M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 21

Plate 21A. View of the Leska peak from the southeast pathway, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 21B. View of the top of Leska from the mountainous pathway, from the south. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 22

Plate 22A. View of the exposed bedrock at the highest point of the Leska peak, from the north, with the Drymonas peak in the background. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 22B. View of the Tainaron peninsula looking northwest from the Leska peak. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 23

Plate 23A. View of the highest snow-clad peak of the Taygetos mountain range looking northwest from the Leska peak. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 23B. View of Cape Maleas (in the background) looking northeast from the Leska peak. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 24

Plate 24A. Exposed bedrock at the highest point of the Leska peak, from the west, with Hagios Georgios sto Vouno at the back left. Akritas hill is left of Hagios Georgios sto Vouno, and Palaikastro hill is to the right. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 24B. View of the island of Antikythera and the mountain peaks of western Crete (far background) looking southeast from the Leska peak. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 25

Plate 25A. View of Mt. Mermigkari and the Leska peak to the right, from Hagios Georgios sto Vouno in the west. Photo M. Georgiadis.

Plate 25B. View of Leska peak from the west on the morning of July 3, 2011. Photo M. Georgiadis.

PLATE 26

Plate 26. A proposed use of the exposed bedrock at the highest point of the peak as a baetyl. Photo M. Georgiadis.