A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

47
BCH Supplément 52 BULLETIN DE CORRESPONDANCE HELLÉNIQUE La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen Η ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση εποχή του Χαλκού The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age Édités par Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Gilles TOUCHAIS, Sofia VOUTSAKI et James WRIGHT Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006 MESOHELLADIKA ΜΕΣΟΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΑ

description

MESOHELLADIKA – MΕΣΟΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΑ. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen – Η ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση Εποχή του Χαλκού – The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze AgeAnna Philippa-Touchais, Gilles Touchais, Sofia Voutsaki & James Wright (επιμέλεια)

Transcript of A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Page 1: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

BCH Supplément 52

BCHSupplément

52

é c o l e f r a n ç a i s e d ´ a t h è n e s

ME

SO

HE

LL

AD

IKA

ΜΕ

ΣΟ

ΕΛ

ΛΑ

ΔΙΚ

Α

À l’époque où s’épanouit en Crète la civilisation des premiers palais minoens (première moitié du iie millénaire av. n.è.), la Grèce continentale traverse une période généralement considérée comme une phase de stagnation, voire de régression : l’Helladique Moyen. La relative austérité de la culture matérielle et le caractère apparemment rudimentaire des structures sociales mésohelladiques expliquent sans doute le peu d’intérêt longtemps suscité par cette période. Or, les recherches récentes, s’appuyant sur une documentation qui s’est beaucoup accrue au cours des dernières décennies, mais aussi sur le réexamen des données anciennes, tendent à corriger cette image : l’Helladique Moyen apparaît aujourd’hui comme une période de profonds changements d'ordre social, politique et culturel qui conduisirent peu à peu à l’émergence de la civilisation mycénienne. Il a donc paru nécessaire de faire le point en organisant le premier colloque international sur l’Helladique Moyen. Le volume des actes, qui réunit près d’une centaine de contributions sur divers aspects de la culture mésohelladique, constitue ainsi le premier ouvrage entièrement consacré à l’une des périodes les plus mal connues de la protohistoire égéenne.

During the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, as the first palaces appear in Crete and the Minoan civilisation is flourishing, the Greek mainland goes through what is considered a period of stagnation, if not decline and social regression: the Middle Helladic period. The Middle Bronze Age in the Greek mainland has received very little attention, perhaps because of the relative austerity of the material culture and the absence of overt social differentiation. However, a wealth of research over the past several decades, that derives from both recent discoveries and the re-examination of older data, requires us to revise this picture. In fact, it is nowadays suggested that the Middle Helladic period witnessed profound cultural, social and political transformations which laid the basis for the emergence of the Mycenaean civilisation. It was therefore deemed necessary to reassess develop-ments during the period by organising the first international conference dedicated exclusively to the Middle Helladic period. The Proceedings of the conference, which brings together about one hundred contributions on different aspects of Middle Helladic culture, is the first publication to throw light on an obscure and neglected period of Aegean prehistory.

Bulletin de CorrespondanCe Hellénique, suppléments

47. Études d’archéologie délienne, par Philippe Bruneau. Recueil d’articles rassemblés et indexés par Jean-Charles Moretti, 2006.

48. La sculpture des Cyclades à l’époque archaïque. Histoire des ateliers, rayonnement des styles. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’éphorie des antiquités préhistoriques et classiques des

Cyclades et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 7-9 septembre 1998). Édités par Yannos Kourayos et Francis Prost, 2008.

49. La sculpture byzantine viie – xiie siècles. Actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École française

d’Athènes (Athènes, 6-8 septembre 2000). Édités par Charalambos Pennas et Catherine Vanderheyde, 2008.

50. La gigantomachie de Pergame ou l’image du monde, par Françoise-Hélène Massa-Pairault, 2007.

51. ASMOSIA VII Actes du Viie colloque international de l’ASMOSIA organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, le National

Center for Scientific Research « DEMOKRITOS », la 18e éphorie des antiquités préhistoriques et classiques (Kavala) et l’Institut of Geology and Mineral Exploration (Thasos 15-20 septembre 2003). Études réunies par Yannis Maniatis, 2009.

B U L L E T I N D E C O R R E S P O N D A N C E H E L L É N I Q U E

L a G r è c e c o n t i n e n t a l e a u B r o n z e M o y e nΗ ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση εποχή του ΧαλκούThe Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age

Édités par Anna PhiliPPa-Touchais, Gilles Touchais, Sofia VouTsaki et James WrighT

Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens

et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006

M E S O H E L L A D I K AΜ Ε Σ Ο Ε Λ Λ Α Δ Ι Κ Α

Page 2: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

000A_BCH Suppl. 52_pages de titreΒΑΤ2 3/9/10 11:15 AM PageI

Page 3: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

000A_BCH Suppl. 52_pages de titreΒΑΤ2 3/9/10 11:15 AM PageII

Page 4: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

MESOHELLADIKAM E ™ O E § § A ¢ I K A

000A_BCH Suppl. 52_pages de titreΒΑΤ2 3/9/10 11:15 AM PageIII

Page 5: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

É C O L E F R A N Ç A I S E D ’ A T H È N E S

Directeur des publications : Dominique MulliezAdjointe aux publications : Catherine Aubert

Révision des normes : Béatrice DetournayPhotogravure, impression et reliure : Break’inConception graphique de la couverture : EFA, Guillaume Fuchs

Dépositaire : De Boccard Édition-Diffusion – 11, rue de Médicis, F – 75006 Paris, www.deboccard.com

Ouvrage publié avec le concours de l’INSTAP (Institut for Aegean Prehistory), Philadelphie, USA

© École française d’Athènes, 2010 – 6 Didotou, GR – 106 80 Athènes, www.efa.gr

ISBN 978-2-86958-210-1

Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur pour tous pays, y compris les États-Unis.

000A_BCH Suppl. 52_pages de titreΒΑΤ2 3/9/10 11:15 AM PageIV

Page 6: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

MESOHELLADIKAM E ™ O E § § A ¢ I K A

La Grèce continentale au Bronze MoyenΗ ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση εποχή του ΧαλκούThe 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 Athenset le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006

Édités par Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Gilles TOUCHAIS, Sofia VOUTSAKI et James WRIGHT

B U L L E T I N D E C O R R E S P O N D A N C E H E L L É N I Q U E

000A_BCH Suppl. 52_pages de titreΒΒΒ2 17/9/10 2:20 PM PageV

Page 7: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Une partie des congressistes devant le Cotsen Hall (photo Ph. Touchais)

000A_BCH Suppl. 52_pages de titreΒΑΤ2 3/9/10 11:15 AM PageVI

Page 8: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

PRÉFACE

Allocution de bienvenue du Directeur de l’École française d’Athènes

L'étude du matériel des fouilles de l'habitat mésohelladique de la colline de l'Aspis étant en coursd'achèvement, les responsables du programme, Gilles Touchais et Anna Philippa-Touchais, ontsouhaité orienter la recherche de deux manières : en entreprenant l'étude globale des vestigesarchitecturaux de l'habitat mis au jour depuis les premières fouilles de Vollgraff et en mettant à profitcette étude pour une mise en valeur du site, mais aussi en inscrivant cette recherche dans uneinterrogation plus large sur l'Helladique Moyen. Cela impliquait de faire le point sur l'une des périodesles plus mal connues de la protohistoire égéenne en essayant de réunir, au niveau international, leschercheurs que le hasard des découvertes ou un choix délibéré avaient conduits à travailler sur cettepériode. On pouvait ainsi espérer dresser un bilan entièrement renouvelé par les données desnombreuses fouilles et prospections menées au cours des trente dernières années.C'est à cet objectif que répond le colloque Mesohelladika. La Grèce continentale au BronzeMoyen, dont l'École française d'Athènes a eu l' initiative. Pour permettre son organisation, elle s'estassuré le concours de l'École américaine et de l'Institut néerlandais et je remercie très chaleureusementmes collègues Stephen Tracy et Gert Jan Wijngaarden d'avoir accepté le principe de cette association.En répondant positivement à notre invitation, les très nombreux chercheurs présents, venusd'Australie, d'Autriche, des États-Unis, de Finlande, de France, de Grande-Bretagne, de Grèce,d'Italie, des Pays-Bas et de Suède ont témoigné de leur intérêt pour la thématique centrale du colloque :procéder à une réévaluation de l'Helladique Moyen. - À tous, je souhaite la bienvenue et de fructueuxtravaux.Je remercie tous ceux qui, dans chacune des trois Écoles concernées, ont permis l'organisation de cettemanifestation. J'adresse des remerciements tout particuliers à Gilles Touchais, qui m' a soumis ce projetdès 2003, et à Anna Philippa-Touchais, dont la présence à Athènes a permis de régler les mille et unequestions que ne manque pas de soulever une manifestation de cette ampleur.

Dominique MULLIEZ

BCH Suppl. 52

00B_BCH Suppl 52_Preface_BAT 12/9/2010 06:03 µµ Page 1

Page 9: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Wellcome address of the Director of the Netherlands Institute in Athens

Dear colleagues and friends, ladies and gentlemen,Some time ago, Dr Sofia Voutsaki persuaded me to support this conference. On the occasion sheemphasized that the Middle Bronze Age of the Greek mainland had been neglected of late and thatit was in serious need of attention. Taking a look at the impressive conference program, I could onlyacknowledge Sofia’s claims: obviously many scholars felt a similar need to discuss Middle HelladicGreece.For several of the archaeological programs of the Netherlands Institute in Athens, the MiddleBronze Age is of importance. This is true for the excavations at Geraki in Lakonia, for the surveysin Thessaly, Boeotia and Zakynthos, as well as for the analytical program on the Argolid. I am con-fident that the Mesohelladika conference will contribute to a better understanding of the materialsdealt with in these programs.I am very pleased that this conference is a joint venture of three foreign archaeological institutes inGreece. International academic events are increasingly more difficult and costly to organize and coop-eration in this respect is, in my view, beneficial to all. I would like to thank warmly my colleaguesDominique Mulliez and Stephen Tracy for the fruitful cooperation and for the hospitality. I also con-gratulate the organizers with the impressive program and I wish all participants an enjoyable andfruitful conference.

Gert Jan VAN WIJNGAARDEN

Wellcome address of the Director of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

On behalf of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens welcome to this international confer-ence Mesohelladika. It is wonderful to have such a large crowd on hand this evening. The program ofthe conference is diverse and rich; I think we will all learn much from our colleagues over the next fourdays. I know that we all are looking forward to it. The American School of Classical Studies is proudto cooperate with the Netherlands Institute and with the French School at Athens in hosting this con-ference. I want to congratulate and to thank the organizing committee and to single out Dr. AnnaPhilippa-Touchais, the person on the ground here in Athens, for all her hard work. Thank you all again and welcome.

Stephen TRACY

BCH Suppl. 52

00B_BCH Suppl 52_Preface_BAT 12/9/2010 06:03 µµ Page 2

Page 10: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

INTRODUCTION

L’Helladique Moyen, période qui correspond, en gros, à la première moitié du IIe millénaireavant notre ère, s’intercale entre deux phases de prospérité économique et d’accomplisse-ment culturel majeurs pour la Grèce continentale : le Bronze Ancien, d’une part, qui a vunaître et se développer, au cours du IIIe millénaire, des communautés proto-urbaines déjàfortement organisées, ouvertes sur le reste du monde égéen, et l’époque mycénienne del’autre, qui, dans la seconde moitié du IIe millénaire, portera à son apogée le système pala-tial et étendra son influence bien au-delà des rives de la mer Égée. C’est pourquoil’Helladique Moyen est toujours apparu en retrait par rapport à ces deux grands moments,dans une vision purement négative que reflètent bien les termes de stagnation, de recul,d’isolement le plus souvent utilisés pour caractériser cette période. En outre, la compa-raison avec l’essor que connaît, à la même époque, la Crète protopalatiale, tourne elle aussiau désavantage de la Grèce continentale et renforce cette impression négative, qui n’est sansdoute pas étrangère au relatif désintérêt dont l’Helladique Moyen a pâti jusqu’à présentdans la recherche sur les civilisations égéennes.Il apparaît cependant aujourd’hui, à la lumière des recherches récentes, que l’HelladiqueMoyen n’est pas cette longue période d’atonie si souvent décrite. Des indices de plus enplus nombreux suggèrent qu’elle a au contraire été marquée par de profonds changementsd’ordre social, politique et culturel, qui conduisirent progressivement à la formation desentités politiques protomycéniennes et, plus tard, des royaumes mycéniens. C’est pourquoiil nous a semblé que le moment était venu de rassembler la documentation la plus largepossible sur cette période encore mal connue – ou plutôt méconnue. Le meilleur moyenétait de faire se rencontrer tous les collègues qui avaient accumulé de nouvelles données aucours des dernières décennies, mais aussi ceux qui tentaient d’interpréter celles dont ondisposait. C’est ainsi qu’est née l’idée de ce colloque – le premier à être consacré exclusi-vement à l’Helladique Moyen – et que furent définis ses principaux objectifs : d’une part,dresser un bilan de nos connaissances sur la période, en ne négligeant aucun domaine dela recherche ; d’autre part, explorer les mécanismes qui sont à l’origine des changements

BCH Suppl. 52

000D_BCH Suppl 52_Introd_BAT 26/8/2010 09:02 πμ Page 3

Page 11: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

constatés et tenter d’apprécier leur dynamique. On suggéra donc plusieurs axes de ré-flexion : la topographie et l’habitat (réseaux d’occupation humaine, organisation spatiale) ;les pratiques rituelles et funéraires ; les problèmes chronologiques (séquences céramiques,synchronismes, datations absolues) ; l’économie et l’exploitation des ressources naturelles(agriculture et élevage, techniques et productions artisanales, alimentation) ; les problèmesdémographiques et sanitaires ; les contacts, les échanges et les influences culturelles ; l’évo-lution des structures socio-politiques. L’intuition que le sujet était « mûr » et qu’une vision moins négative de l’HelladiqueMoyen avait commencé de prévaloir parmi les spécialistes du monde égéen a été confir-mée bien au-delà de nos espérances. Car même dans nos prévisions les plus optimistes,nous étions loin d’imaginer que notre initiative rencontrerait un tel écho. En effet, prèsde 130 chercheurs ont répondu à notre invitation, plus de 80 d’entre eux proposant deprésenter une communication et plus d’une quarantaine de réaliser un poster.Finalement, sur les 69 communications présentées à Athènes, 63 sont éditées dans le pré-sent volume1, et 28 posters sur 292.Ce projet n’aurait pu être mené à bien sans le soutien financier et logistique, mais aussiscientifique et moral, des trois institutions qui en ont assuré directement l’organisation :l’École française d’Athènes, l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et leNetherlands Institute in Athens, dont nous tenons à remercier les directeurs respectifs,Dominique Mulliez, Stephen V. Tracy et Gert Jan van Wijngarten, pour les moyens maté-riels et humains qu’ils ont généreusement mis à notre disposition. L’Institute of AegeanPrehistory de Philadelphie a également répondu, avec sa libéralité coutumière, à nosdemandes de subvention, aussi bien pour l’organisation du colloque lui-même que pour

4 INTRODUCTION

BCH Suppl. 52

1. Massimo Cultraro, qui n’avait pu participer au colloque, a envoyé le texte de sa communication, mais lestextes suivants n’ont pas été remis : Antikleia Agrafioti, « Les industries lithiques du Bronze Moyen et l’enjeudes éléments de faucille» ; Polyxeni Arachoviti, « ∞ÂÚÈÓfi, ¤Ó·˜ ÔÈÎÈÛÌfi˜ Ù˘ ª¤Û˘ ∂Ô¯‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÷ÏÎÔ‡ ÛÙËÓÔÙÈÔ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈ΋ £ÂÛÛ·Ï›· » ; Ioanna Galanaki, « Lefkandi Phases 2-6 : Some Observations on the Commu-nication Networks and Communication Processes during the Middle Helladic Period » ; Chrysanthi Gallou,« “In the Dark Heart of Maleas”. The Transition from the Middle Helladic to the Early Mycenaean Period inthe Southeastern Peloponnese » ; Olga Kyriazi, « ª·ÚÙ˘Ú›Â˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈ΋ §ÔÎÚ›‰· Û¯ÂÙÈο Ì ÙËÌÂÙ·‚·ÙÈ΋ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô ·fi ÙË ª¤ÛË ÛÙËÓ ⁄ÛÙÂÚË ∂Ô¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÷ÏÎÔ‡: ÂÓÂÚÁ‹ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ ÛÙȘ ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÈΤ˜·ÏÏ·Á¤˜ ‹ ÛÙÔ ÂÚÈıÒÚÈÔ ÙˆÓ ÂÍÂÏÈÎÙÈÎÒÓ ‰ÈÂÚÁ·ÛÈÒÓ; » ; Elena Kountouri, « ¶ÚÔÌ˘ÎËÓ·˚΋ £‹‚· : Ù·‰Â‰Ô̤ӷ ·fi ÙȘ Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓ˜ ¤Ú¢Ó˜ » ; Michael Lindblom, « The Middle Helladic Settlement at Mastos inthe Berbati Valley » ; Adamantia Vassilogamvrou, « ∏ ÎÂÚ·ÌÈ΋ Ù˘ ª∂ πππ-À∂ π Ê¿Û˘ ·fi ÙË ı¤ÛË∫·Ù·ÚÚ·¯È¿ ¢˘ÙÈ΋˜ ∞¯·˝·˜ ».

2. Il manque celui d’Olga Philaniotou, « Naxos in the Middle Bronze Age. New Evidence for Habitation ». Pourla publication, nous avons choisi d’intégrer les posters aux unités thématiques auxquels ils se rapportent enles mêlant aux communications, plutôt que de les regrouper dans une section séparée comme cela se fait sou-vent.

000D_BCH Suppl 52_Introd_BAT 26/8/2010 09:02 πμ Page 4

Page 12: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

la publication des actes : nous exprimons ici toute notre reconnaissance à son comitéscientifique ainsi qu’à Karen Velluci, directrice des programmes de subvention, en quinous avons toujours trouvé une interlocutrice efficace et attentionnée. Parmi les institu-tions françaises, le Centre national de la recherche scientifique et l’université Paris 1 –Panthéon-Sorbonne ont apporté une contribution appréciable au financement du col-loque. De leur côté, le Service culturel de la Ville d’Athènes (¢‹ÌÔ˜ ∞ıËÓ·›ˆÓ,¶ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÈÎfi˜ OÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌfi˜) et l’office du Tourisme hellénique (∂ÏÏËÓÈÎfi˜ OÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌfi˜ΔÔ˘ÚÈÛÌÔ‡, ÀÔ˘ÚÁ›Ԣ ΔÔ˘ÚÈÛÙÈ΋˜ ∞Ó¿Ù˘Í˘) ont soutenu la manifestation en met-tant gracieusement à notre disposition 150 exemplaires de deux luxueuses brochures surAthènes, l’Attique et ses monuments. Plusieurs participants au colloque ont par ailleursbénéficié de l’hospitalité offerte par les Instituts danois et suédois, ainsi que par lesÉcoles britannique et italienne, que nous remercions sincèrement de leur concours. C’estune dette particulière que nous avons envers Bob Bridges, secrétaire général de l’Écoleaméricaine, qui, pendant les trois jours où le colloque s’est tenu au Cotsen Hall, n’aménagé ni son temps ni sa peine pour assurer le bon déroulement des séances etrésoudre tous les problèmes techniques, sans se départir jamais de son sourire.Nous remercions également pour leur précieux concours à l’organisation et au bon fonc-tionnement du colloque Maria Tsimboukaki, qui a géré le secrétariat avec un dévoue-ment et une efficacité dignes d’éloge, Stratos Balis et Tomek Hertig (site Internet), EleniGerontakou et Catherine Pantazis (travaux de secrétariat), Philippe Touchais (photosd’ambiance), ainsi que les volontaires étudiants post-diplôme de l’universités d’Athènes,dont le zèle et la bonne humeur communicative ont largement contribué à l’ambiancechaleureuse qui a régné tout au long de cette rencontre : Giorgos Charitos, GiorgosChoulis, Nikolas Dimakis, Dimitris Kloukinas, Akathi Maria Kovaiou, Anna Loukidou,Stefania Michalopoulou, Konstantina Nikolopoulou, Evangelia Polyzou et Eva Roussaki. C’est d’autre part à Orestis Kakavakis, doctorant à l’université d’Athènes, que l’on doitla traduction grecque des résumés qui figurent dans le présent volume. Nous sommes particulièrement reconnaissants à Catherine Aubert, responsable du servi-ce des publications de l’EFA, pour le soin qu’elle a apporté à l’édition des actes de cecolloque, et à Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos, auteur de l’affiche. Cet ouvrage témoignera durablement du remarquable travail accompli ces dernièresannées par une communauté de chercheurs qui, last but not least, mérite elle aussi toutenotre gratitude – une communauté qui a hélas été endeuillée, depuis le colloque, par ladisparition prématurée de deux de ses membres : Maria Oikonomakou et Angeliki Pilali,dont nous tenons à saluer ici la mémoire.

Les éditeurs

INTRODUCTION 5

BCH Suppl. 52

000D_BCH Suppl 52_Introd_BAT 26/8/2010 09:02 πμ Page 5

Page 13: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

000D_BCH Suppl 52_Introd_BAT 26/8/2010 09:02 πμ Page 6

Page 14: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

ABRÉVIATIONS

PÉRIODIQUES ET SÉRIES

Les abréviations utilisées sont celles de l’American Journal of Archaeology (voir AJA 111 [2007], p. 14-34, ou le site

internet www.ajaonline.org) auxquelles on ajoutera :

AEMTh ΔÔ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎfi ŒÚÁÔ ÛÙË ª·Î‰ÔÓ›· Î·È £Ú¿ÎË

BCH Chron. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, «Chronique des fouilles et découvertes

archéologiques en Grèce »

MONOGRAPHIES

Ägäische Frühzeit II.2 E. ALRAM-STERN, Die ägäische Frühzeit, 2. Serie. Forschungsbericht 1975-2003,2. Band, Teil 1 : Die Frühbronzezeit in Griechenland mit Ausnahme von Kreta,Wien (2004).

Agora XIII S. A. IMMERWAHR, The Athenian Agora, XIII. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages,Princeton (1971).

Alt-Ägina III.1 H. WALTER, F. FELTEN, Alt-Ägina. III, 1. Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt. Befesti-gungen, Häuser, Funde, Mainz (1981).

Alt-Ägina IV.2 H. B. SIEDENTOPF, Alt-Ägina IV, 2. Mattbemalte Keramik der MittlerenBronzezeit, Mainz (1991).

Alt-Ägina IV.3 I. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, Alt-Ägina IV, 3. Das mittelbronzezeitliche Schachtgrab vonÄgina, Mainz (1997).

Argissa III E. HANSCHMANN, V. MILOJCIC, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien, III. Die frühe und beginnende mittlere Bronzezeit, Bonn(1976).

Argissa IV E. HANSCHMANN, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thes-salien, IV. Die Mittlere Bronzezeit, Bonn (1981).

BCH Suppl. 52

008_BCH Suppl 52_Abrev_BAT 26/8/2010 09:20 πμ Page 7

Page 15: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Argos et l’Argolide A. PARIENTE, G. TOUCHAIS (éds), ), ÕÚÁÔ˜ Î·È ∞ÚÁÔÏ›‰·. ΔÔÔÁÚ·Ê›· ηÈÔÏÂÔ‰ÔÌ›· / Argos et l’Argolide. Topographie et urbanisme. Actes de la Tableronde internationale, Athènes-Argos, 28/4-1/5/1990, Recherches franco-helléniques3, Athènes (1998).

Asine I O. FRÖDIN, A. W. PERSSON, Asine, Results of the Swedish Excavations, 1922-1930, Stockholm (1938).

Asine II (1, 2) S. DIETZ, Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974, 1.General Stratigraphical Analysis and Architectural Remains (1982) ; 2. The MiddleHelladic Cemetery. The Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Deposits, Stock-holm (1980).

Asine III R. HÄGG, G. C. NORDQUIST, B. WELLS (éds), Asine III. Supplementary Studieson the Swedish Excavations 1922-1930, Stockholm (1996).

Autochthon A. DAKOURI-HILD, S. SHERRATT (éds), Autochthon, Papers Presented toO. T. P. K. Dickinson on the Occasion of his Retirement, Oxford (2005).

Ayios Stephanos W. D. TAYLOUR, R. JANKO (eds), Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Ageand Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia, BSA Suppl. 44 (2008).

BUCK R. J. BUCK, « Middle Helladic Mattpainted Pottery », Hesperia 33 (1964),p. 231-313.

CAVANAGH & MEE, Private Place W. CAVANAGH, C. MEE, A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece,Private Place SIMA 125, Jonsered (1998).

Celebrations R. HÄGG, G. NORDQUIST (éds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the BronzeAge Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish In-stitute in Athens, 11-13 June 1988, Stockholm (1990).

DIETZ, Argolid S. DIETZ, The Argolid at the Transition to the Mycenaean Age. Studies in theChronology and Cultural Development in the Shaft Grave Period, Copenhagen(1991).

Emporia R. LAFFINEUR, E. GRECO (éds), EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and EasternMediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference / 10e Ren-contre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April2004, Aegaeum 25, Liège (2005).

Eutresis H. GOLDMAN, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge, Mass. (1931).

FORSÉN, Twilight J. FORSÉN, The Twilight of the Early Helladics. A Study of the Disturbances inEast-central and Southern Greece towards the End of the Early Bronze Age, SIMA-PB 116, Jonsered (1992).

Gazetteer R. HOPE-SIMPSON, O. T. P. K. DICKINSON, A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation inthe Bronze Age, 1. The Mainland and the Islands. SIMA 52, Göteborg (1979).

Habitat égéen P. DARCQUE, R. TREUIL (éds), L’habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la Tableronde internationale organisée par le CNRS, l’université de Paris I et l’Écolefrançaise d’Athènes (Athènes, 23-25 juin 1987), BCH Suppl. 19, Athènes(1990).

Horizon N. J. BRODIE, J. DOOLE, G. GAVALAS, C. RENFREW (éds), OÚ›˙ˆÓ. A Colloquiumon the Prehistory of the Cyclades, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,

8 ABRÉVIATIONS

BCH Suppl. 52

008_BCH Suppl 52_Abrev_BAT 26/8/2010 09:20 πμ Page 8

Page 16: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

University of Cambridge, 25-28 March 2004 (2008).

KARO G. KARO, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai, München (1930-1933).

Keos V J. L. DAVIS, Keos V. Ayia Irini : Period V, Mainz (1986).

Keos VII J. C. OVERBECK, Keos VII. Ayia Irini : Period IV. Part 1 : The Stratigraphy andthe Find Deposits, Mainz (1989).

Kiapha Thiti II.2 J. MARAN, Kiapha Thiti. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen II.2 (2. Jt. v. Chr. :Keramik und Kleinfunde), MarbWPr 1990, Marburg (1992).

Kirrha L. DOR, J. JANNORAY, H. & M. VAN EFFENTERRE, Kirrha. Étude de préhistoirephocidienne, Paris (1960).

Korakou C. W. BLEGEN, Korakou, a Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth, Boston-NewYork (1921).

Kythera J. N. COLDSTREAM, G. L. HUXLEY (éds), Kythera. Excavations and Studies,London (1972).

Lerna II J. L. ANGEL, Lerna, a Preclassical Site in the Argolid, II. The People of Lerna(1971).

Lerna III J. B. RUTTER, Lerna, a Preclassical Site in the Argolid, III. The Pottery of Lerna IV(1995).

Meletemata Ph. P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR, W. D. NIEMEIER (éds),MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. WienerAs he Enters his 65th Year, Aegaeum 20, Liège-Austin (1999).

Metron K. FOSTER, R. LAFFINEUR (éds), METRON. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age.Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference / 9e Rencontre égéenne in-ternationale, New Haven, Yale University, 18-21 April 2002, Aegaeum 24,Liège-Austin (2003).

MH Pottery F. FELTEN, W. GAUSS, R. SMETANA (éds), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchro-& Synchronisms nisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Salzburg, October 30th to Nov-

ember 2nd, 2004, Wien (2007).

Minoan Thalassocracy R. HÄGG, N. MARINATOS (éds), The Minoan Thalassocracy : Myth and Reality.Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute inAthens, 31 May-5 June 1982, Stockholm (1984).

MYLONAS, ¢NE G. E. MYLONAS, Δe ‰˘ÙÈÎeÓ ÓÂÎÚÔÙ·ÊÂÖÔÓ Ùɘ \EÏÂ˘Û›ÓÔ˜, \AıÉÓ·È (1975).

MYLONAS, TKB G. E. MYLONAS, O Ù·ÊÈÎe˜ ·ÎÏÔ˜ μ ÙáÓ ª˘ÎËÓáÓ, \AıÉÓ·È (1973).

Nichoria I G. RAPP, S. ASCHENBRENNER (éds), Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece,I. Site, Environs and Techniques, Minneapolis (1978).

Nichoria II W. MCDONALD, N. WILKIE (éds), Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece,II. The Bronze Age Occupation, Minneapolis (1992).

NORDQUIST, MH Village G. C. NORDQUIST, A Middle Helladic Village. Asine in the Argolid, Acta Universi-tatis Upsaliensis, Boreas 16, Uppsala (1987).

Origins O. T. P. K. DICKINSON, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation, SIMA 49, Göte-borg (1977).

ABRÉVIATIONS 9

BCH Suppl. 52

008_BCH Suppl 52_Abrev_BAT 26/8/2010 09:20 πμ Page 9

Page 17: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Palace of Nestor III C. W. BLEGEN, M. RAWSON, W. TAYLOUR, W. P. DONOVAN, The Palace of Nestorat Pylos in Western Messenia, III. Acropolis and Lower Town. Tholoi and GraveCircle, Chamber Tombs, Discoveries Outside the Citadel, Princeton (1973).

PELON, TTCF O. PELON, Tholoi, tumuli et cercles funéraires, BEFAR 229, Paris (1976).

Pevkakia III J. MARAN, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien,III. Die mittlere Bronzezeit, Bonn (1992).

PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, « Aperçu des céramiques mésohelladiques à décor Céramique Aspis I peint de l’Aspis d’Argos, I. La céramique à peinture mate », BCH 126

(2002), p. 1-40.

PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, « Aperçu des céramiques mésohelladiques à décorCéramique Aspis II peint de l’Aspis d’Argos, II. La céramique à peinture lustrée », BCH 127

(2003), p. 1-47.

Polemos R. LAFFINEUR (éd.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze.Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, université de Liège, 14-17 avril1998, Aegaeum 19, Liège (1999).

Politeia R. LAFFINEUR, W.-D. NIEMEIER (éds), POLITEIA. Society and State in theAegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference /5e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches In-stitut 10-13 April 1994, Aegaeum 12, Liège-Austin (1995).

Potnia R. LAFFINEUR, R. HÄGG (éds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the AegeanBronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontreégéenne internationale, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000, Aegaeum 22,Liège-Austin (2001).

Pr. Eleusis G. E. MYLONAS, « ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎc \EÏÂ˘Û›˜ », in K. KOUROUNIOTIS (éd.),\EÏ¢ÛÈÓȷο Aã (1932), p. 1-172.

Pr. Thessaly A. J. B. WACE, M. S. THOMPSON, Prehistoric Thessaly, Cambridge (1912).

Prosymna C. W. BLEGEN, Prosymna. The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Her-aeum, Cambridge (1937).

RUTTER, Ayios Stephanos J. B. & S. H. RUTTER, The Transition to Mycenaean. A Stratified MH II toLH II A Pottery Sequence from Ayios Stephanos in Lakonia, Los Angeles (1976).

RUTTER, Review II J. B. RUTTER, « Review of Aegean Prehistory, II. The Prepalatial BronzeAge of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland », AJA 97 (1993), p. 745-797, reprinted in T. CULLEN (éd.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review, AJA Suppl. 1

(2001), p. 95-147, with « Addendum : 1993-1999 », p. 148-155.

TAW Thera and the Aegean World, London. I (1978), Ch. DOUMAS (éd.) ; II (1980),Ch. DOUMAS (éd.) ; III (1990), D. HARDY et al. (éds).

TEXNH R. LAFFINEUR, Ph. P. BETANCOURT (éds), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomenand Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th InternationalAegean Conference / 6e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Philadelphia, Temple Uni-versity, 18-21 April 1996, Aegaeum 16, Liège (1997).

Thanatos R. LAFFINEUR (éd.), THANATOS. Les coutumes funéraires en Égée à l’Âge duBronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986, Aegaeum 1, Liège (1987).

10 ABRÉVIATIONS

BCH Suppl. 52

008_BCH Suppl 52_Abrev_BAT 26/8/2010 09:20 πμ Page 10

Page 18: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Transition R. LAFFINEUR (éd.), TRANSITION. Le monde égéen du Bronze Moyen au BronzeRécent. Actes de la 2e Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’université de Liège (18-20 avril 1988), Aegaeum 3, Liège (1989).

VALMIN, SME N. VALMIN, The Swedish Messenia Expedition, Lund (1938).

Wace & Blegen C. ZERNER, P. ZERNER, J. WINDER (éds), Proceedings of the International Con-ference Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age1939-1989, Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Athens, De-cember 2-3, 1989, Amsterdam (1993).

ZERNER, Beginning C. W. ZERNER, The Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period at Lerna, PhD thesis,University of Cincinnati, Ann Arbor (1978).

ZERNER, MH Pottery I C. ZERNER, « Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I Pottery from Lerna »,Hydra 2 (1986), p. 58-74.

ZERNER, MH Pottery II C. ZERNER, « Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I Pottery from Lerna, II :Shapes », Hydra 4 (1988), p. 1-10.

ZERNER, Perspectives C. ZERNER, « New Perspectives on Trade in the Middle and Early Late Hel-ladic Periods on the Mainland », in Wace & Blegen, p. 39-56.

SUBDIVISIONS CHRONOLOGIQUES

English

EB(A), MB(A), LB(A) Early Bronze (Age), Middle Bronze (Age), Late Bronze (Age)

EC, MC, LC Early Cycladic, Middle Cycladic, Late Cycladic

EH, MH, LH Early Helladic, Middle Helladic, Late Helladic

EIA Early Iron Age

EM, MM, LM Early Minoan, Middle Minoan, Late Minoan

Français

BA, BM, BR Bronze Ancien, Bronze Moyen, Bronze Récent

CA, CM, CR Cycladique Ancien, Cycladique Moyen, Cycladique Récent

HA, HM, HR Helladique Ancien, Helladique Moyen, Helladique Récent

MA, MM, MR Minoen Ancien, Minoen Moyen, Minoen Récent

EÏÏËÓÈο

¶∂, ª∂, À∂ ¶ÚˆÙÔÂÏÏ·‰ÈÎfi˜, ªÂÛÔÂÏÏ·‰ÈÎfi˜, ÀÛÙÂÚÔÂÏÏ·‰ÈÎfi˜

¶∂Ã, ª∂Ã, À∂à ¶ÚÒÈÌË ∂Ô¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÷ÏÎÔ‡, ª¤ÛË ∂Ô¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÷ÏÎÔ‡, ⁄ÛÙÂÚË ∂Ô¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÷ÏÎÔ‡

¶M, MK, YK ¶ÚˆÙÈ΢ÎÏ·‰ÈÎfi˜, MÂÛÔ΢ÎÏ·‰ÈÎfi˜, YÛÙÂÚÔ΢ÎÏ·‰ÈÎfi˜

¶Ã, ªÃ, Àà ¶ÚˆÙÔ¯·ÏÎfi˜, ªÂÛÔ¯·ÏÎfi˜, ÀÛÙÂÚÔ¯·ÏÎfi˜

¶ÚÒÈÌË Ã·ÏÎÔÎÚ·Ù›·, ª¤ÛË Ã·ÏÎÔÎÚ·Ù›·, ⁄ÛÙÂÚË Ã·ÏÎÔÎÚ·Ù›·

ABRÉVIATIONS 11

BCH Suppl. 52

008_BCH Suppl 52_Abrev_BAT 26/8/2010 09:20 πμ Page 11

Page 19: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

008_BCH Suppl 52_Abrev_BAT 26/8/2010 09:20 πμ Page 12

Page 20: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Defining Ritual Action. A Middle Helladic Pit at the Site of ApollonMaleatas in Epidauros*

Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI

BCH Suppl. 52

RÉSUMÉ Pour une définition de l’acte rituel. Une fosse mésohelladique sur le site du sanctuaire d’Apollon Maléatas àÉpidaure

Un habitat de l’HA se trouvait au sommet de la colline, à l’emplacement où devait s’élever plustard le sanctuaire d’Apollon Maléatas à Épidaure. On y a en effet découvert trois sépultures indi-viduelles de l’HA I et trois phases de construction de l’HA II  : un grand bâtiment, cinq maisonsde plan absidal et au moins trois de plan rectangulaire. L’habitat fut ensuite abandonné et la seuleactivité que l’on enregistre est l’ouverture, au centre de la zone, d’une fosse contenant du matérielqui date de l’HA III et de l’HM. L’auteur suggère que la fosse et son contenu sont les restes de céré-monies communautaires qui avaient lieu lorsque les habitants revenaient, de temps à autre, sur lesite de leur village déserté. Les vestiges de pratiques cultuelles mycéniennes et géométriques sontsitués non loin de là sur le versant Nord, là où fut construit plus tard le sanctuaire archaïque etclassique. Il y a en outre un mur de péribole indiquant que le sommet de la colline était une zoneà laquelle l’accès était limité. La question n’est pas de savoir s’il exista une activité cultuelle maisquand et pourquoi elle débuta : peut-être la grande fosse sur la colline apporte-t-elle la réponse.

ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ Προσδιορίζοντας την τελετουργική πράξη. Ένας μεσοελλαδικος αποθέτης στο ιερό τουΑπόλλωνος Μαλεάτα στην Επίδαυρο

Στην ΠΕ περίοδο υπήρχε μια εγκατάσταση στην κορυφή ενός λόφου, στη θέση τουμεταγενέστερου ιερού του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα, στην Επίδαυρο. Εκεί βρέθηκαν τρεις ατομικέςταφές της ΠΕ I περιόδου και ανασκάφηκαν τρεις οικοδομικές φάσεις της ΠΕ II: ένα μεγάλοκτήριο, πέντε αψιδωτά οικήματα και τρία τουλάχιστον ορθογώνια. Έκτοτε η εγκατάστασηεγκαταλείφθηκε και η μόνη τεκμηριωμένη δραστηριότητα είναι το άνοιγμα ενός λάκκου στοκέντρο αυτής της περιοχής, με ευρήματα που χρονολογούνται στην ΠΕ III και τη ΜΕ περίοδο.Η συγγραφέας του άρθρου υποστηρίζει ότι ο λάκκος με το περιεχόμενό του αποτελούν τακατάλοιπα κοινοτικών τελετουργιών, που λάμβαναν χώρα όταν κατά καιρούς οι κάτοικοιεπέστρεφαν στο εγκαταλελειμμένο χωριό τους. Τα κατάλοιπα μυκηναϊκής και γεωμετρικήςλατρείας εντοπίζονται σε μικρή απόσταση χαμηλότερα, στη βόρεια κλιτύ του λόφου, όπουοικοδομήθηκε το αρχαϊκό και κλασικό ιερό. Επιπλέον, υπάρχει ένας περίβολος, ο οποίος όριζε τολόφο ως χώρο ελεγχόμενης πρόσβασης. Το ερώτημα δεν είναι αν υπήρχε εδώ τελετουργικήδραστηριότητα, αλλά πότε και γιατί ξεκίνησε. Η απάντηση ίσως βρίσκεται στον μεγάλο λάκκοπάνω στο λόφο.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page521

Page 21: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

When evaluating the results of excavation at a prehistoric site, we often come to the ques-tion of whether the place had ritual significance or not. In the case of Kynortion, the site ofthe sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas in Epidauros, this question is already answered; indeedthe site was a sanctuary from the Mycenaean period on. Consequently the question has tobe altered: when did ritual activities start in this place and what kind of ritual was it?Defining ritual activity is the point that this paper aims to address.

RITUAL MATTERS

The observer’s perspective affects his or her approach. Interpretation of the data dependsvery much on the way that one focuses on and examines the data. Even the scholar’s atti-tude towards studying religion is inevitably bound up in his or her religious behaviour andbeliefs.1 As a result, most archaeologists are reluctant to get involved in such a study; thosewho do, end up providing a reconstruction of prehistoric rituals that is obviously derivedfrom the beliefs of later periods. Religion in an archaeological context is, although inter-esting, an issue at the edge of scientific study and is often regarded with great suspicion.2Another problem is that the distinction between the presentation of data and its interpre-tation is often not entirely obvious. This is especially true of older publications. Someopinions that were originally expressed as speculations were later reproduced as facts.3In other cases, the terms “sacred”, “ritual”, and “religious” are applied to every archaeo-

BCH Suppl. 52

522 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI

* I thank the organizing committee for giving me the chance to present this paper; I also thank them all forthe stimulating and educating experience of the Mesohelladika conference. This paper is a summary of my MAthesis at the University of Athens under the wise supervision of Prof. G. Korres. I would also like to thankProf. V. Lambrinoudakis for giving me permission to excavate, study and publish the Early and Middle Helladicphases on Kynortion. The lecturer A. Hasiakou helped me very much with the study of MH pottery, and I thankher. Prof. K. D. Vitelli checked the English text and made valuable remarks; of course more valuable was herconstant encouragement. My friend E. Sikla spent much of her time discussing ritual and theory with me andread a draft of the paper. I deeply thank my husband, the architect J. Mavrommatidis, who made the site plan.I am also much obliged to the artist K. Rasias for the reconstruction drawing. The rest of the drawings andthe photos were made by the author, who is also responsible for any mistakes.

1. T. INSOLL, “Archaeology of Cult and Religion”, in C. RENFREW, P. BAHN (eds.), Archaeology, The Key Concepts(2005), p. 45-49.

2. About interpretation: S. G. COLE, “Archaeology and Religion”, in N. WILKIE, D. E. COULSON (eds.), Contributionsto Aegean Archaeology: Studies in Honour of William A. McDonald (1985), p. 49-59; C. RENFREW, The Archaeologyof Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi (1985); R. LAFFINEUR, “Archéologie et religion: problèmes et méthode”,Kernos 1 (1988), p. 129-140; J. WRIGHT, “The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of MycenaeanReligion”, in S. ALCOCK, R. OSBORNE (eds.), Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (1994),p. 37-78; C. RENFREW, “The Archaeology of Religion”, in C. RENFREW, E. ZUBROW (eds.), The Ancient Mind. Ele-ments of Cognitive Archaeology (1994), p. 47-54; T. INSOLL, Archaeology, Ritual, Religion (2004), p. 33-100;E. KYRIAKIDIS, Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean : The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries (2006) – Ι thank him for lettingme read part of his book before publication; E. SIKLA, Configurations of the Symbolism of the Bull in NeopalatialCrete: A Case Study in Minoan Religion, unpublished PhD thesis, Bryn Mawr College (2006).

3. B. RUTKOWSKI, Cult Places of the Aegean (1986), p. xvi.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page522

Page 22: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

logical find that cannot be easily interpreted in another way.4 Most probably the quest forspecific finds that we have become accustomed to think of as cult objects –such as figurines,votive offerings, symbolic items, bones– has caused us to overlook traces of less obviouscontextual data, such as fire remains, pits, stone accumulations, vessels in sets, and the like.Objects are rarely used in only one way and for one purpose.Religion should not be considered as an isolated domain of human life, but as a wholesystem of beliefs that is suffused throughout and affects every aspect of human life.5 Thepeople who performed the ancient ceremonies, who established the settlements, organizedtheir community, produced, used, and exchanged the artefacts that we find in excavations,were all the same people. Some artefacts may seem to us more easily interpreted thanothers, but all were part of the same communication code, system of values, and way of life.6Only a few scholars have addressed questions about the role of the sacred in the MiddleHelladic period and most of them deal with the question of whether or not there was a re-ligious system at that time. G. Nordquist supposes that no traces of cult can be identifiedbecause cult “must have entered into most aspects of daily life”.7 On the other hand,R. Hägg suggests that cult traces may not be recognizable because in the Middle Helladicperiod people did not use special equipment, but everyday things, and that many of thosewere made of perishable material. I agree with them. Hägg refers to the sanctuary of ApolloMaleatas as a Middle Helladic cult site that preceded the Mycenaean sanctuary.8What we know of Middle Helladic society is very limited. Most is based on theory and notgrounded in indisputable data. Middle Helladic settlement organization varies substan-tially from place to place and over time. Its basic elements (houses, communal buildings,enclosure walls, etc.), although they exist at almost every known settlement, are not alwayseasily identifiable and distinguished. During the Early and Middle Helladic periods theyare not obvious and do not have standardized features. How, then, can we expect cult places to be obvious and closely similar to those we knowfrom later periods? Non-standardized does not imply simple and of course we cannot as-sume that the older the religion the more simple it is. The contrary may seem more

BCH Suppl. 52

A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 523

4. T. INSOLL (supra, n. 1), p. 45-49.5. Id., “Are Archaeologists Afraid of Gods? Some Thoughts on Archaeology and Religion”, in T. INSOLL (ed.), Be-

lief in the Past. Proceedings of the 2002 Manchester Conference on Archaeology and Religion (2004), p. 5; id. (supra,n. 2), p. 22.

6. J. BARRET, “Towards an Archaeology of Ritual”, in P. GARWOOD, D. JENNINGS, R. SKEATS et al. (eds.), Sacred andProfane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford 1989 (1991), p. 5; E. WASILEWSKA,“The Search for the Impossible: The Archaeology of Religion of Prehistoric Societies as an AnthropologicalDiscipline”, JPR 8 (1994), p. 71-75; E. BLAKE, “The Material Expression of Cult, Ritual, and Feasting”, inE. BLAKE, A. B. KNAPP (eds.), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory (2005), p. 103-125; E. WEIBERG,Thinking the Bronze Age : Life and Death in Early Helladic Greece (2007), p. 15-17.

7. NORDQUIST, MH Village, p. 111.8. R. HÄGG, “Did the Middle Helladic People have any Religion?”, Kernos 10 (1997), p. 13-18.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page523

Page 23: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

probable, since religion does not develop in a linear fashion.9 But we can consider early cultexpressions as not standardized in the sense that we cannot see uniformity over place andtime. This understanding may change if new data are discovered or new methodologicalapproaches developed. From the existing data we cannot argue for standardisation anduniformity before the beginning of Late Helladic period.10The reconstruction of earlier cult patterns cannot be derived by simply going backwardsfrom a later stage of a more complex society. One has to distinguish the elements anddeduct an enduring core of beliefs and practices.11

LEAVING HOME, BUT NOT FORGETTING

The settlement at Kynortion developed during the Early Helladic period (Fig. 1).12 Thefirst traces of human presence on the hill can be dated to EH I, when three individualburials took place and several walls have been attributed to buildings. In EH II threebuilding phases have been identified. The first consists of a large building with rectangularrooms, and a stone drainage channel. Five apsidal buildings are slightly later. They werebuilt in pairs around a common open space and were connected by small rectangularrooms. Maybe their apses formed a wall that surrounded the settlement. The exact plan ofthis phase is not yet complete. The third phase consisted of one -or two- room, rectangularbuildings. Four buildings have so far been located, but not fully excavated. There are hintsthat the settlement extended farther to the northwest. This last phase was poor in finds

BCH Suppl. 52

524 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI

9. J. CHADWICK, “What Do we Know about Mycenaean Religion?”, in A. MORPURGO DAVIES, Y. DUHOUX (eds.),Linear B: A 1984 Survey (1985), p. 191-202.

10. O. DICKINSON, “‘The Origins of the Mycenaean Civilization’ Revisited”, in Transition p. 133.11. J. WRIGHT, “The Archaeological Correlates of Religion: Case Studies in the Aegean”, in Politeia, p. 345.12. I. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Ἀνασκαφὴ ἐν τῷ Ἀσκληπιείῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος Μαλεάτα ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ”,

Prakt 1949, p. 90-111; “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν τῷ Ἀσκληπιείῳ τῆς Ἐπιδαύρου”, Prakt 1950, p. 91-99; “Ἀνασκαφαὶτοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος Μαλεάτα ἐν τῷ Ἀσκληπιείῳ τῆς Ἐπιδαύρου”, Prakt 1951, p. 194-202; V. LAMBRI-NOUDAKIS, “Ἱερὸν Ἀπόλλωνος Μαλεάτου εἰς Ἐπίδαυρον”, Prakt 1975, p. 162-175; “Ανασκαφή στο ιερό τουΑπόλλωνος Μαλεάτα”, Prakt 1976, p. 202-209; 1977, p. 187-194; 1978, p. 111-121; 1981, p. 157-181; 1996,p. 125-128; 1998, p. 155-156; 1999, p. 113-115; 2000, p. 67-69; 2001, p. 57-59; Ergon 1977, p. 98-105; 1978,p. 37-42; 1998, p. 68-70; 1999, p. 56-58; 2000, p. 52-54; 2001, p. 44-45; id., “Staatskult und Geschichte derStadt Epidauros”, Αρχαιογνωσία 1 (1980), p. 39-63; id., “Remains of the Mycenaean Period in the Sanctuaryof Apollo Maleatas”, in R. HÄGG, N. MARINATOS (eds.), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedingsof the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May 1980 (1981), p. 59-65; id., “Con-servation and Research: New Evidence on a Long-living Cult. The Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas andAsklepios at Epidauros”, in M. STAMATOPOULOU, M. YEROULANOU (eds.), Excavating Classical Culture. Recent Ar-chaeological Discoveries in Greece (2002), p. 214; A. THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI, “Ανασκαφική έρευνα στο ιερότου Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα: η πρωτοελλαδική περίοδος”, in A.  VLACHOPOULOS, K.  BIRTACHA (eds.),Αργοναύτης. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στοΠανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών 1980-2000 (2003), p. 247-262; ead., “An Early Helladic Settlement in the ApollonMaleatas Site in Epidauros”, in Ägäische Frühzeit II.2, p. 1167-1182.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page524

Page 24: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

compared to the lower strata. Small portable objects are missing and only very few items(large, heavy, and broken before the abandonment) were found on the floors. The stratig-raphy is clear and the layers have not been removed by erosion. This suggests that thesettlement was abandoned and not destroyed. The reason they left their village and theirdestination is not known. It must have been something very serious to force them to leavetheir homes and move elsewhere. A survey of the area and a comparative study of othersites in the Argolid might help answer this question. In the middle of the abandoned area, on the platform that previous activity had created ontop of the hill, a pit containing Middle Helladic pottery was excavated. Its dimensions wereapproximately 4 × 3 m, and its shape, an irregular ellipsoid. It had been dug to a depth of0.80 m into the levels of the Early Helladic settlement and partially destroyed those do-mestic remains (Figs. 2, 4). The pit produced 2,090 sherds mostly from drinking vessels (bowls, goblets, cups), largeclosed vessels (jars, amphoras, jugs), large open vessels (large bowls, basins, pans) andcooking pots (simple or with legs) (Figs. 6, 7).13 Some of the drinking vessels are fine Grey(Fig.  7  c) or Black Minyan pottery; others are semi-coarse, Orange-ware cups. TwoPolychrome ware jugs have been identified from sherds, along with part of a large Matt-Painted amphora with double circle motive (Fig.  7  f).14 Among the contents of the pit ispart of an Orange-ware bowl with waved grooves in groups of six (Fig. 7 d),15 and part ofa large jar with plastic and incised band decoration (Fig. 6).16 Two anchor shaped objectswere also found.17The lithic objects are 39, among them pressure flaked obsidian blades (14 in the upper layerand 2 in the lower), chert blades (1 in each layer), chert denticulate sickle elements (1 ineach layer), one pebble tool and two broken millstones (upper layer).18 The bones wereabundant: a total of 762 pieces (590 in the upper layer and 172 in the lower), of which 52were burnt (33 in the upper and 19 in the lower). Sheep, bovid, pig bones and a deer antlerhave been identified.19

BCH Suppl. 52

A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 525

13. The pit was partially excavated by Prof. V. Lambrinoudakis in 1977-78. In 1998, the app. 1/3 remaining wasexcavated by the author. The numbers cited here refer to the finds of the 1998 period. Therefore I avoidedpercentages and general conclusions about the pottery before all the material is fully recorded.

14. Alt-Ägina IV.2, p. 47, 65.15. Lerna III, p. 269, fig. 125 (no. 1404).16. Ibid., p. 126, fig. 27, pl. 8 d (P421); p. 146, pl. 11 c (P610-P614).17. H.-J. WEISSHAAR, “Ägäische Tonanker”, AM 95 (1980), p. 33-49; Alt-Ägina III.1, p. 144, 237; Taf. 99 (nos. 245-

250).18. C. RUNNELS, “The Bronze-Age Flaked-Stone Industries from Lerna: A Preliminary Report”, Hesperia 54

(1985), p. 357-391; id., A Diachronic Study and Analysis of Millstones from the Argolid, Greece (1981).19. Until the bone remains are studied by an expert we can not connect them with exact activities. It seems prob-

able though that the deer was not consumed since no other deer bones except the antler have been yetidentified.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page525

Page 25: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

The stratigraphy within the pit is also intriguing; except for the surface layer that wasformed after the pit was last closed, two other layers of use can be identified (Fig. 2). The lower layer consisted of Middle Helladic pottery lying on ashes and traces of burning.It is worth noting that later material is stratified beneath earlier. The uniformity of the findsof the lower layer and the fact that they were found broken and in situ, suggest that thelower layer is the result of a single act of deposition. In this layer were found 518 sherdsbelonging to a total of nine drinking vessels, four large closed vessels, three large open ves-sels and two cooking pots. The upper layer, on the other hand, includes Middle Helladic and Early Helladic materialas well. 1,572 sherds were found in this layer. 169 pots were identified; a total of 74 drinkingvessels, 69 large closed vessels, 12 large open vessels and 14 cooking pots.Early Helladic material must have infiltrated the Middle Helladic from pre-existingdeposits during the repeated openings of the pit, been set aside while the pit was filled withnew materials, and then re-used to cover the pit. The fact that during the excavation thesoil had some spots of different colour and/or hardness, and some stones seemed to havebeen thrown in a certain direction, leads to that conclusion (Fig. 4). This sequence of eventsexplains why fragments of individual pots were found in different areas of the pit: theymust have been essentially intact pots when originally placed in it. Subsequent digging toreopen, clear, and eventually, close up the pit again must have broken and scattered thefragments. This interpretation implies that the lower layer represents the last use of the pit,while the upper layer is the re-used fill, comprising accidental earlier material, includingthe Middle Helladic material from previous pit openings. This kind of repeated activityinvolved a number of people and cannot have been held very often. This is as far as it seemswise to speculate on current evidence.Outside the pit there was an almost complete but broken one-handled pedestal-footed cupwith a triangular perforation beneath the rim and signs of burning on the interior.20 It isprobably a brazier. This kind of vessel was probably used for incense burning and thereforecould be considered a remnant of cultic action (Fig. 5).The pit had been covered with stones in a way that may have originally created a smalltumulus. It is also worth noting that during historic times (in a Hellenistic phase witha partial reconstruction during Roman times) an enclosure wall created a restricted area ontop of the hill and after the Middle Helladic period nothing was ever built there again(Fig. 1: 5). The enclosure wall appears to have had no entrance: at least of the excavatedtwo-thirds no signs of an entrance have been found. The absence of finds later than MiddleHelladic times is remarkable and leads to the conclusion that even in the Late Helladicperiod, there was a ban on building on the hilltop. Perhaps the area was defined by a wall

BCH Suppl. 52

526 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI

20. Lerna III, p. 243, 326-334, fig. 106 (P1258).

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page526

Page 26: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

that was later demolished or by a fence made of perishable material or even a hedge-likebarrier of shrub growth.

A SYLLOGISTIC APPROACH

This pit would certainly have been considered a simple garbage pit if there had beenMiddle Helladic occupation on top of the Early Helladic remains. Not only does such alayer not exist, but even lower down along the slopes, where pottery tends to accumulate,nothing was found that could be dated later than Early Helladic. On the other hand, someMiddle Helladic and abundant Late Helladic sherds are found all over the Mycenaean sanc-tuary which is, however, not located on the hilltop but on the north slope (Fig. 1: 1). Sincethe pit is the only evidence of Middle Helladic activity in that location, it must have beendug for a specific reason, a reason not connected to domestic activities in the immediatevicinity. Later, in historic times, the flourishing, wealthy sanctuary needed space for construction ofsacred buildings and related rooms. They built a huge monumental retaining wall on thesteep north slope to create space to accommodate the classical stoa (Fig. 1: 4).21 In otherareas, they dug and removed stones or hauled in soil to level the surface for building.Throughout all this extensive construction activity, the flat area on top of the hill, which hasthe best view to the surrounding valley and to the paths, was avoided and left with nobuilding on it. There must have been a serious reason for avoiding that location. The avoidance must besignificant. If there was a settlement at Kynortion in Early Helladic times, and a cult placenearby from Mycenaean times onward, then we have a terminus post quem (EH II) and a ter-minus ante quem (LH) when the change in the use of the site took place.A possible interpretation relates the pit and the lack of building in that same area to thecreation of the sanctuary on the steep north slope. To leave the top of the hill unbuilt musthave been a deliberate choice. This restriction must have been known and respected, notonly by the people who once had lived at the settlement and their immediate successors,but also by those who came to visit the place for generations after the original inhabitantshad left.I therefore suggest that the Early Helladic village was abandoned for reasons we do notknow, and that people continued to gather there from time to time. We may suggest theirmotivations: to strengthen the feeling of community and to remember their life together, toperform communal ceremonies and to claim their rights to the territory (Fig. 3).22

BCH Suppl. 52

A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 527

21. Ergon 1989, p. 13, fig. 15.22. J. BINTLIFF, Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece (1977), p. 147-148; F. DE POLIGNAC,

La naissance de la cité grecque (1995, in Greek 2000), p. 51-60; I. MALKIN, “Territorial Domination and the GreekSanctuary”, in P. HELLSTRÖM, B. ALROTH (eds.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World (1996), p. 75-81.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page527

Page 27: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Thus, the formation of the pit would represent the formation of an early ritual activity,not related to a pre-existing shrine or tomb, but strongly connected to the memory of asettlement. In this situation we should not expect valuable, obviously symbolic, or rare orunique objects. Such things are characteristic of an elite class, when power and religionare connected.23 But when religious expression derives from the community, then every-day objects can serve equally in ritual contexts, their symbolic value deriving entirelyfrom that context.24

It is crucial to note that the place where the pit was dug had not been a sacred place whenthe settlement was inhabited, since the pit partially destroyed houses. Therefore it was nota “shrine” that survived from earlier times and was maintained after the settlement wasabandoned. To the contrary, it was created after the people had left the settlement, but con-tinued to come back to perform ceremonies in the middle of their former village. There wasprobably no need to build a monumental structure that could be seen and recognizedduring their absence. A simple spatial configuration was enough –or maybe the site itselfwas sufficiently monumental to mark the place as their patrimonial territory.

IN MEMORY OF …

The kind of ritual performed on Kynortion must have been connected to the consciousnessof the community. This ritual was held in a specific environment, both natural (the hilltopand its surroundings) and constructed (the abandoned settlement). The significance of thespecific place is suggested by its evolution into a sanctuary in Mycenaean times and later.As already mentioned the later sanctuary was not built at exactly the same location. Evenin Late Helladic times the finds outline a unique case. A lot has been argued about the na-ture of this sanctuary but this discussion is not to be included in the present paper.25

Mycenaean society was much more complex than Middle Helladic societies. In that context,we see clear signs of political leaders, the formation of early states, of stratified societies,

BCH Suppl. 52

528 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI

23. H. WHITTAKER, “Reflections on the Socio-political Function of the Mycenaean Religion”, in Potnia, p. 355-360;ead., “Religion and Power. The Nature of Minoan Influence on Early Mycenaean Religion”, OpAth 27 (2002),p. 151-157.

24. J. WRIGHT (supra, n. 2), p. 40-43.25. V. LAMBRINOUDAKIS (1981, supra, n. 12), p. 59-63; S. G. COLE (supra, n. 2), p. 53; B. RUTKOWSKI (supra, n. 3),

p. 202-203; B. BERGQUIST, “The Archaeology of Sacrifice: Minoan – Mycenaean versus Greek. A Brief Queryinto Two Sites with Contrary Evidence”, in R. HÄGG, N. MARINATOS, G. NORDQUIST (eds.), Early Greek Cult Prac-tice, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium of the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29 June 1986 (1988),p. 21-34; K. KILIAN, “Mykenische Heiligtümer des Peloponnes”, in H. FRONING, T. HÖLSCHER, H. MIELSCH (eds.),Kotinos. Festschrift für Erika Simon (1992), p. 11; J. WRIGHT (supra, n. 2), p. 68; R. HÄGG, “Ritual in MycenaeanGreece”, in F. GRAF (ed.), Ansichten griechischer Rituale: Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert (1998), p. 99-113; E. WEIBERG (supra, n. 6), p. 155-158.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page528

Page 28: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

powerful and wealthy elites.26 When cult is conducted by the elites, maybe then it is ori-ented to the worship of ancestors, and ritual was performed to commemorate earliercommunity gatherings, as a reminder of the beginning of ritual activity at that specific placeand not as a memory of the settlement itself. This might be the reason there is a continuityof cult and certain offerings are present, like weapons, double axes, and seals, which maybe considered as symbolic and prestige objects.27

We can therefore distinguish two degrees of sanctification of the place. The first is purelycommunal, when people came back to their old homes, or their ancestors’ old homes, andgathered, celebrating the memory of community life. The second seems to be of a differentnature. During Mycenaean times ritual was not performed around the pit or even on thehilltop, which had become a restricted area and may have acquired different or additionalmeanings. It was performed in the vicinity, 20 m to the north and 5 m further down theslope. A thick Mycenaean layer was revealed, which consisted of black soil with burningtraces and many votive offerings. Small retaining structures were also found along with aterrace supposed to have been used for gatherings (Fig. 1: 1).28

WE DON’T KNOW THE REASON, BUT THEY DID…

In several cases later sanctuaries were consciously established on Early Bronze Ageremains.29 Maybe it is exactly this relationship –the site and the sacred place– whichinitiates the cult. This possibility is supported by the fact that Early Helladic remains werefound elsewhere at the site, but only for the hilltop with the central ceremonial pit was therea prohibition on reuse, so it was treated as an early temenos. Distinguished from a sanctuary,which is always sacred, a temenos is sacred only when sacred activities are taking place.30

It is difficult to trace such cult activities and more difficult to remodel the context in whichthey took place. If the hilltop had been excavated without the knowledge that a few metersto the north there is a sanctuary, it would be very audacious to suggest that the hilltop was

BCH Suppl. 52

A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 529

26. R. HÄGG, “State and Religion in Mycenaean Greece”, in Politeia, p. 387-390.27. H. WHITTAKER, in Politeia, p. 357.28. Ergon 1987, p. 94-95.29. H. KYRIELEIS, “Zu den Anfängen des Heiligtums von Olympia”, in H. KYRIELEIS (ed.), Olympia 1875-2000. 125

Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen. Internationales Symposion, Berlin 9.-11. Nov. 2000 (2002), p. 213-220; J. RAMBACH,“Olympia im ausgehenden 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.: Bindeglied zwischen zentralem und östlichem Mittelmeer-raum”, in Ägäische Frühzeit II.2, p. 1214; J. L. CASKEY, “Excavations in Lerna, 1955”, Hesperia 25 (1956),p. 147-173; V. ARAVANTINOS, “New Evidence about the EH II Period in Thebes: A New Architectural Complexand a Group Burial within the Kadmeia”, in Ägäische Frühzeit II.2, p. 1255-1259; F. DE POLIGNAC, “Mediation,Competition and Sovereignty”, in S. ALCOCK, R. OSBORNE (eds.) (supra, n. 2), p. 9; C. ANTONACCIO, “Placing thePast”, ibid., p. 79-104.

30. B. BERGQUIST, The Archaic Greek Temenos. A Study of Structure and Function (1967), p. 5.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page529

Page 29: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

a cult place. Since there had been a sanctuary in the vicinity later on, the cult must havebeen initiated at some specific time and for certain reasons. It seems that at Kynortion thegatherings included communal meals and the deposition of the remains of the feast in thepit. Drink was brought to the site in jars and food was cooked there. Meat was important,as indicated by the bone remains. Based on the stratigraphic evidence and the fact that thelater pottery was found at the lower level, we can conclude that this ritual might have beenrepeated many times, by many people since the pit was partially re-dug and sealed everytime the ceremony took place. Tumuli or stone accumulations over domestic remains aredifficult to identify and interpret.31 How a site developed in subsequent periods may shedsome light on the nature of these features.To summarize, there is a large pit that contained Middle Helladic pottery in its lower layer,Middle Helladic and earlier pottery in the upper layer. This stratigraphic anomaly can beexplained by acknowledging repetitive re-openings of the pit to receive pots, bones, ash andcharcoal left after a ritual meal, that were then covered with the sediment originally re-moved to dig the pit. This large pit had been dug right in the middle of the flat hilltop, inthe middle of the former Early Helladic settlement. Nothing was built in this area after theEarly Helladic period. In Hellenistic times an enclosure wall surrounded the hill, but theabsence of remains from the intervening Mycenaean and Iron Ages on the hilltop –evenwhen they are plentiful in the area to its north– implies that the prohibition on building onthe hilltop stood for those periods as well. The explanation suggests that rituals were held at Kynortion from time to time, andthrough repetition of ritual activities, the use and the meaning of the site gradually changedcharacter from essentially domestic to cultic. The reason for a change in the use of a place,the specific events that were associated with the situation may be inaccessible to us, but theywere well known to the people who remembered and had heard stories of the past, legends,and myths. Their ritual behaviour was probably much affected by those stories.

WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT?

The reconstruction of a cognitive system, such as the religious beliefs of prehistoric people,is not easy to do. Recognizing and describing a series of cult acts can help us understandthe behaviour and the ideas that characterized their feeling about the sacred. The study ofthe remains can, up to a point, lead us to understand the spiritual world of a society, itssocial environment, its world.How effective a contemporary approach can be, how today’s consciousness can penetrateaccumulated depositions of stones, soil, sherds, human actions, perceptions, biases, and fears

BCH Suppl. 52

530 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI

31. FORSÉN Twilight, p. 232-237.

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page530

Page 30: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

is a question that is not easily answered. Approaching such matters is a task of methodology,requiring very meticulous and cautious procedures. Could we try not to expect finds of the sort that we are accustomed to consider as ritual,symbolic, or religious? Could we just look at what we find, not influenced by pre-existingopinions and parallels, so we really see what we are looking at?

BCH Suppl. 52

A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 531

1

2

Fig.  1. – Sanctuary of Apollon Maleatas. Site plan (I. Mavrommatidis).Fig.  2. – N-S section of the pit. Stratigraphy (A. Theodorou).

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page531

Page 31: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

BCH Suppl. 52

532 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI

3 4

5 6

Fig.  3. – Reconstruction drawing (K. Rasias).Fig.  4. – The excavated area of the pit, seen from the S (photo A. Theodorou).Fig.  5. – Pedestal footed cup Π 72-02 (photo A. Theodorou, restored by A. Tsigri).Fig.  6. – Large jar Π 189-98-1 (photo A. Theodorou).

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page532

Page 32: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

BCH Suppl. 52

A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 533

Fig.  7. – Pottery: a) Π 210-98; b) Π 205-98-2; c) Π 190-98-7; d) Π 190-98-1; e) Π 220-98-1; f)Π 217-98 (drawing A. Theodorou).

7a

7b

7c

7d

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page533

Page 33: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

303_BCH Suppl. 52_Theodorou_BAT 26/8/10 5:49 PM Page534

Page 34: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

CONCLUSION

The major question at issue in this conference is: “Have we made progress in our knowledgeof mainland Greece during the Middle Bronze Age?” The answer is indisputably yes, evenif there remain many avenues for further research. Oliver Dickinson opened the conferenceby expressing his hope that we would learn much new about this phase of Greek prehistory,broaden our horizons, and ask new questions. The subsequent four days of papers rangedover many areas and themes and it is clear from listening to them that we have succeededin informing each other in ways that make for a much more nuanced understanding ofthis period than we had before we arrived.This progress has been made in three different respects. First is geographical. Regions whichhad been largely unknown and under-appreciated such as Elis, Achaia, Aetolia, Phthiotis-Lokris, Thessaly, and the Spercheios Valley, are now understood to be important and excitingareas for research. Important settlements which were not known in enough detail are muchclearer thanks to reports given here. For examples we can point to Thebes, Dimini andKirrha, among many others. Second is chronological. We are now at a point where, especiallythanks to the patient and careful work of all of our colleagues in the Archaeological Service,we can provide an archaeological definition of MH I and MH II, at least within restrictedregions ; and this is not limited to the study of ceramics but also leads to an emerging under-standing of the organization of settlement and to indications of the directions of interactionamong different regions. Third is thematic. Of the approximately 70 communications, lessthan a dozen focused on ceramics (although this subject was often recognized as a componentof other papers) and just slightly fewer focused on burials and funerary customs. Yet if the

BCH Suppl. 52

800_BCH Suppl. 52_Conclusion_BAT 12/9/10 6:33 PM Page1037

Page 35: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

conference had taken place 10 or 15 years before, without doubt many more papers wouldhave addressed these themes, because at that time they monopolized our interests.This signifies, without any disrespect for these subjects, how scholarly interest has matured.Henceforth many other important subjects, such as lithics, architecture and settlement,economy, subsistence and modes of life, and social structure will drive our research.A number of presentations here have illustrated also the importance of attention to highlydetailed and scientific applications that have the potential to revise fundamentally our tra-ditional view of Middle Helladic societies. All these new and enlarged themes are owed toa transformation in the approaches Aegean archaeologists take to their fields of study, andwe can take pride that our international community cooperates not only in research butalso in training and that our host country of Greece continues to welcome new approachesand new ideas in the study of its past.The attention to the geographic spread of Middle Helladic cultures and the variety of inter-connections among different regions of Greece bears further comment. We are especiallygrateful to the participants for presenting much important new material, for bringing to lightold material that was insufficiently known, and for focusing on the interpretation of evidenceat many levels. As already noted, we have come to appreciate much better, thanks to thereports presented here, the vitality and viability of different regions. The papers have openedour eyes to settlement around the Saronic Gulf, throughout Attika, in Lokris and Thessaly,throughout the Corinthian Gulf and its opening to the West, in the southwesternPeloponnesos, in relationship to the Cycladic islands and those of the northeast Aegean, andof course in relation to Crete.Of special notice are the reports that show the strong relations among Thessaly, Lokris, andPhokis and their relationship to the Corinthian Gulf. Discussion of settlements along theCorinthian Gulf show how they are interconnected, thus emphasizing its important role asa corridor connecting the Saronic Region at the east with Western Greece. From there, fol-lowing on several reports, we are reminded that during the Middle Bronze Age knowledgeof the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian coasts was increased and even that the geography of theWestern Mediterranean was within the ken of these peoples. When we look eastwards intothe Aegean, several reports make clear the fundamental importance for mainlanders of con-nections to the islands, whether looking at local relations with the important offshore islandsof Aegina and Keos or the Cyclades, with their emerging gateway communities that con-trolled access to Crete.Also of interest is the role of Crete during this period. Several of the papers point to Cretaninterest in metals, not least a reason for Cretan interest in the northern and northeasternAegean as more advanced forms of copper and bronze metallurgy begin to take hold. Weneed continuously reassess the role of Crete at this time, since as the work at Kythera demon-strates, it is not as straightforward as models of Cretan “colonization” of the Aegean hadpreviously led scholars to believe.

BCH Suppl. 52

1038 CONCLUSION

800_BCH Suppl. 52_Conclusion_BAT 12/9/10 6:33 PM Page1038

Page 36: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

The outstanding work of our colleagues in the Archaeological Service deserves further notice.Without their reports on new discoveries, their restudy of old material that commands ourattention, and their assessment of the details of stratigraphy, ceramic development, and evi-dence of interconnections, this conference would not have succeeded. What has been pro-vided to the conferees as a result of these reports is nothing less than a rewriting of theMiddle Helladic as a cultural period. In connection with this work, the many papers whichreevaluated different aspects of Middle Helladic culture and its social practices, provide uswith a picture of a culture that is distinctly Middle Helladic, yet remains one without a strongcenter. In this regard the mosaic of regional and local forms that come into view is especiallytantalizing as a picture of what we know was to come in the Late Bronze Age. Middle HelladicGreece is not merely an appendage of Early Helladic nor only a prelude to the Mycenaeans.It was a vigorous and dynamic interregional cultural phenomenon that established socialand economic relations in a fashion that was different from the small centralized politiesof the Early Bronze Age. At a time when new connections were forged and older onesreestablished, it was a new beginning, but hardly the one of stagnant cultural practices andan immobilized and impoverished population that most of us have been taught. There aremany lessons for us to draw from the proceedings and we hope that they will bring to awider public the interest and excitement shown by the participants at the conference.

The editors

BCH Suppl. 52

CONCLUSION 1039

800_BCH Suppl. 52_Conclusion_BAT 12/9/10 6:33 PM Page1039

Page 37: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

800_BCH Suppl. 52_Conclusion_BAT 12/9/10 6:33 PM Page1040

Page 38: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Préface, par Dominique MULLIEZ, Directeur de l’EFA, ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1Stephen V. TRACY, Directeur de l’ASCSA et ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2Gert Jan VAN WIJNGARTEN, Directeur du NIA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3Liste des abréviations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Conférence inaugurale, par Oliver DICKINSON : The “Third World” of the Aegean? Middle Helladic GreeceRevisited ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

I. ΤOPOGRAPHIE ET HABITAT

Katie DEMAKOPOULOU and Nicoletta DIVARI-VALAKOU, The Middle Helladic Settlement on the Acropolisof Midea ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31-44

Άλκηστη ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ, Οι ανασκαφές στο Νοσοκομείο του Άργους ................................................................................. 45-56

Kim SHELTON, Living and Dying in and around Middle Helladic Mycenae ................................................................................................ 57-65

Eleni KONSOLAKI-YIANNOPOULOU, The Middle Helladic Establishment at Megali Magoula, Galatas(Troezenia) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 67-76

Joost CROUWEL, Middle Helladic Occupation at Geraki, Laconia ....................................................................................................................................... 77-86

Eλένη ZΑΒΒΟΎ, Eυρήματα της μεσοελλαδικής και της πρώιμης μυκηναϊκής εποχής από τηΣπάρτη και τη Λακωνία ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 87-99

Jack L.  DAVIS and Sharon R. STOCKER, Early Helladic and Middle Helladic Pylos  : The PetropoulosTrenches and Pre-Mycenaean Remains on the Englianos Ridge ...................................................................................................................................... 101-106

Jörg RAMBACH, Πρόσφατες έρευνες σε μεσοελλαδικές θέσεις της δυτικής Πελοποννήσου ..................... 107-119Søren DIETZ and Maria STAVROPOULOU-GATSI, Pagona and the Transition from Middle Helladic to Myce-naean in Northwestern Peloponnese ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121-128

Lena PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, The Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I Periods at Aigion in Achaia ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 129-141

Eva ALRAM-STERN, Aigeira and the Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period in Achaia .......................................... 143-150

Michaela ZAVADIL, The Peloponnese in the Middle Bronze Age : An Overview ......................................................................... 151-163

Walter GAUSS and Rudolfine SMETANA, Aegina Kolonna in the Middle Bronze Age ..................................................... 165-174

Naya SGOURITSA, Lazarides on Aegina: Another Prehistoric Site (poster) .......................................................................................... 175-180

Γιάννος Γ. ΛΩΛΟΣ, Σκλάβος: ένα μεσοελλαδικό ορόσημο στη νότια ακτή της Σαλαμίνος(αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 181-185

BCH Suppl. 52

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1041

Page 39: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Γιάννα ΒΕΝΙΕΡΗ, Νέα στοιχεία για την κατοίκηση στη νότια πλευρά της Ακρόπολης των Αθηνών κατάτη μεσοελλαδική περίοδο: ευρήματα από την ανασκαφήστο οικόπεδο Μακρυγιάννη ............................ 187-198

Όλγα ΚΑΚΑΒΟΓΙΑΝΝΗ και Κερασία ΝΤΟΥΝΗ, Η μεσοελλαδική εποχή στη νοτιοανατολικήΑττική .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 199-210

Konstantinos KALOGEROPOULOS, Middle Helladic Human Activity in Eastern Attica: The Case of Brauron .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 211-221

Jeannette FORSÉN, Aphidna in Attica Revisited ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 223-234

† Μαρία ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΑΚΟΥ, Μεσοελλαδικές θέσεις στη Λαυρεωτική και τη νοτιοανατολική Αττική(αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 235-242

Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU, Attica in the Middle Helladic Period ......................................................................................................................................... 243-257

Φωτεινή ΣΑΡΑΝΤΗ, Νέοι οικισμοί της Μέσης Εποχής του Χαλκού στην επαρχία Ναυπακτίας(αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 259-267

Sylvie MÜLLER CELKA, L’occupation d’Érétrie (Eubée) à l’Helladique Moyen (poster) ........................................... 269-279

Λιάνα ΠΑΡΛΑΜΑ, Mαρία ΘΕΟΧΑΡΗ, Σταμάτης ΜΠΟΝΑΤΣΟΣ, Xριστίνα PΩΜΑΝΟΥ και Γιάννης MΑΝΟΣ,Παλαμάρι Σκύρου: η πόλη της Mέσης Xαλκοκρατίας (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) .............................. 281-289

Anthi BATZIOU-EFSTATHIOU, Kastraki, a New Bronze Age Settlement in Achaea Phthiotis ............................... 291-300

Βασιλική ΑΔΡΥΜΗ-ΣΙΣΜΑΝΗ, Το Διμήνι στη Μέση Εποχή Χαλκού ....................................................................................................... 301-313

Λεωνίδας Π. ΧΑΤΖΗΑΓΓΕΛΑΚΗΣ, Νεότερα ανασκαφικά δεδομένα της Μέσης Εποχής Χαλκού στοΝομό Καρδίτσας ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 315-329

II. PRATIQUES FUNÉRAIRES ET ANTHROPOLOGIE PHYSIQUE

Anna LAGIA and William CAVANAGH, Burials from Kouphovouno, Sparta, Lakonia ...................................................... 333-346

Eleni MILKA, Burials upon the Ruins of Abandoned Houses in the Middle Helladic Argolid ......................... 347-355

Ελένη ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΥ, Μεσοελλαδικοί τάφοι από τη Μιδέα .................................................................................................................................. 357-365

Olivier PELON, Les tombes à fosse de Mycènes : rupture ou continuité ? ................................................................................................. 367-376

Vassilis ARAVANTINOS and Kyriaki PSARAKI, The Middle Helladic Cemeteries of Thebes. General Reviewand Remarks in the Light of New Investigations and Finds ................................................................................................................................................... 377-395

Laetitia PHIALON, Funerary Practices in Central Greece from the Middle Helladic into the Early MycenaeanPeriod (poster) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 397-402

Vassilis P. PETRAKIS, Diversity in Form and Practice in Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean ElaborateTombs: An Approach to Changing Prestige Expression in Changing Times ........................................................................................ 403-416

Maia POMADÈRE, De l’indifférenciation à la discrimination spatiale des sépultures ? Variété des comportementsà l’égard des enfants morts pendant l’HM-HR I ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 417-429

Florian RUPPENSTEIN, Gender and Regional Differences in Middle Helladic Burial Customs.............................. 431-439

Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Prospects for Reconstructing the Lives of Middle Helladic Populations in the Argolid:Past and Present of Human Bone Studies ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 441-451

BCH Suppl. 52

1042 TABLE DES MATIÈRES

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1042

Page 40: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Abi BOUWMAN, Keri BROWN and John PRAG, Middle Helladic Kinship  : Families, Faces and DNA atMycenae .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 453-459

Robert ARNOTT and Antonia MORGAN-FORSTER, Health and Disease in Middle Helladic Greece ....... 461-470

Anne INGVARSSON-SUNDSTRÖM, Tooth Counts and Individuals: Health Status in the East Cemetery andBarbouna at Asine as Interpreted from Teeth (poster) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 471-477

Fabian KANZ, Karl GROSSSCHMIDT and Jan KIESSLICH, Subsistence and more in Middle Bronze Age AeginaKolonna : An Anthropology of Newborn Children (poster) ................................................................................................................................................. 479-487

Leda KOVATSI, Dimitra NIKOU, Sofia KOUIDOU-ANDREOU, Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Carol ZERNER and SofiaVOUTSAKI, Ancient DNA Analysis of Human Remains from Middle Helladic Lerna (poster) ....................... 489-494

III. UNIVERS SYMBOLIQUE ET RITUEL

Evyenia YIANNOULI, Middle Helladic between Minoan and Mycenaean: On the Symbolic Meaning of Offen-sive Instruments ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 497-507

Fritz BLAKOLMER, The Iconography of the Shaft Grave Period as Evidence for a Middle Helladic Traditionof Figurative Arts? ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 509-519

Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI, Defining Ritual Action. A Middle Helladic Pit at the Site of ApolloMaleatas in Epidauros .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 521-533

Helène WHITTAKER, Some Thoughts on Middle Helladic Religious Beliefs and Ritual and their Significancein Relation to Social Structure ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 535-543

Alexandra TRANTA-NIKOLI, Elements of Middle Helladic Religious Tradition and their Survival in Myce-naean Religion (poster) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 545-548

IV. CÉRAMIQUE ET CHRONOLOGIE

Michael B. COSMOPOULOS, The Middle Helladic Stratigraphy of Eleusis .................................................................................................... 551-556

Αικατερίνη ΣΤΑΜΟΥΔH, Η μεσοελλαδική κατοίκηση στο Κάστρο Λαμίας. Κεραμεικές ακολουθίεςκαι ιδιαιτερότητες στην κοιλάδα του Σπερχειού ....................................................................................................................................................................... 557-571

Fanouria DAKORONIA, Delphi-Kirrha-Pefkakia via Spercheios Valley : Matt-Painted Pottery as Sign of Inter-communication ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 573-581

Μαρία-Φωτεινή ΠΑΠΑΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ και Δημήτρης Ν. ΣΑΚΚΑΣ, Μεσοελλαδική κεραμική από τοΑμούρι στην κοιλάδα του Σπερχειού (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ...................................................................................................... 583-590

Ελένη ΦΡΟΥΣΣΟΥ, Η μετάβαση από τη Μέση στην Ύστερη Εποχή Χαλκού στο Νέο ΜοναστήριΦθιώτιδας (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 591-601

Kalliope SARRI, Minyan and Minyanizing Pottery. Myth and Reality about a Middle Helladic Type Fossil ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 603-613

John C. OVERBECK, The Middle Helladic Origin of “Shaft-Grave Polychrome” Ware ..................................................... 615-619

BCH Suppl. 52

TABLE DES MATIÈRES 1043

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1043

Page 41: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Iro MATHIOUDAKI, “Mainland Polychrome” Pottery : Definition, Chronology, Typological Correlations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 621-633

Walter GAUSS, Aegina Kolonna. Pottery Classification and Research Database (poster) .......................................... 635-640

Sofia VOUTSAKI, Albert NIJBOER and Carol ZERNER, Radiocarbon Analysis and Middle Helladic Lerna (poster) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 641-647

V. PRODUCTION, TECHNOLOGIE ET ÉCONOMIE

Δέσποινα ΣΚΟΡΔΑ, Κίρρα: οι κεραμεικοί κλίβανοι του προϊστορικού οικισμού στη μετάβαση απότη μεσοελλαδική στην υστεροελλαδική εποχή .............................................................................................................................................................................. 651-668

Lindsay SPENCER, The Regional Specialisation of Ceramic Production in the EH  III through MH  II Period ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 669-681

Evangelia KIRIATZI, “Minoanising” Pottery Traditions in the Southwest Aegean during the Middle BronzeAge: Understanding the Social Context of Technological and Consumption Practice .......................................................... 683-699

Maria KAYAFA, Middle Helladic Metallurgy and Metalworking : Review of the Archaeological and Archaeo-metric Evidence from the Peloponnese ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 701-711

Ιωάννης Δ. ΦΑΠΠΑΣ, Από τη Μέση στην Ύστερη Εποχή Χαλκού: μια οικοτεχνική δραστηριότηταστον Βοιωτικό Ορχομενό .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 713-719

Armelle GARDEISEN, Approche comparative de contextes du Bronze Moyen égéen à travers les données del’archéozoologie ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 721-732

Gerhard FORSTENPOINTNER, Alfred GALIK, Gerald E. WEISSENGRUBER, Stefan ZOHMANN,Ursula THANHEISER and Walter GAUSS, Subsistence and more in Middle Bronze Age Aegina Kolonna  :Patterns of Husbandry, Hunting and Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 733-742

Alfred GALIK, Stefan ZOHMANN, Gerhard FORSTENPOINTNER, Gerald WEISSENGRUBER and Walter GAUSS,Subsistence and more in Middle Bronze Age Aegina Kolonna  : Exploitation of Marine Resources (poster) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 743-751

VI. ORGANISATION ET ÉVOLUTION SOCIALES

John BINTLIFF, The Middle Bronze Age through the Surface Survey Record of the Greek Mainland: Demo-graphic and Sociopolitical Insights ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 755-763

Sofia VOUTSAKI, The Domestic Economy in Middle Helladic Asine ........................................................................................................................ 765-779

Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Settlement Planning and Social Organisation in Middle Helladic Greece .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 781-801

James C. WRIGHT, Towards a Social Archaeology of Middle Helladic Greece ....................................................................................... 803-815

Louise A. HITCHCOCK and Anne P.  CHAPIN, Lacuna in Laconia  : Why were there no Middle HelladicPalaces ? (poster) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 817-822

BCH Suppl. 52

1044 TABLE DES MATIÈRES

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1044

Page 42: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

VII. RELATIONS EXTÉRIEURES ET INTERACTION

Peggy SOTIRAKOPOULOU, The Cycladic Middle Bronze Age : A “Dark Age” in Aegean Prehistory or a DarkSpot in Archaeological Research ? ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 825-839

Donna May CREGO, Ayia Irini IV: A Distribution Center for the Middle Helladic World ?(poster) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 841-845

Gerald CADOGAN and Katerina KOPAKA, Coping with the Offshore Giant: Middle Helladic Interactions withMiddle Minoan Crete ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 847-858

Luca GIRELLA, MH III and MM III : Ceramic Synchronisms in the Transition to the Late Bronze Age .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 859-873

Aleydis VAN DE MOORTEL, Interconnections between the Western Mesara and the Aegean in the MiddleBronze Age .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 875-884

Tomáš ALUŠÍK, Middle Helladic and Middle Minoan Defensive Architecture: A Comparison(poster) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 885-889

Christos BOULOTIS, Koukonisi (Lemnos), un site portuaire florissant du Bronze Moyen et du début du BronzeRécent dans le Nord de l’Égée .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 891-907

Vassilis P. PETRAKIS and Panagiotis MOUTZOURIDIS, Grey Ware(s) from the Bronze Age Settlement ofKoukonisi on Lemnos : First Presentation (poster) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 909-917

Massimo CULTRARO, In Death not Separated. Evidence of Middle Bronze Age Intramural Burials at Poliochnion Lemnos ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 919-930

Peter PAVÚK, Minyan or not? The Second Millennium Grey Ware in Western Anatolia and its Relation toMainland Greece ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 931-943

Ιωάννης ΑΣΛΑΝΗΣ, Στοιχεία αρχιτεκτονικής από τη μεσοχαλκή Μακεδονία: τα δεδομένα από τονΆγιο Μάμα Νέας Ολύνθου ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 945-953

Χριστίνα ΖΙΩΤΑ, Η δυτική Μακεδονία στην ύστερη τρίτη και στις αρχές της δεύτερηςχιλιετίας π.Χ. Οι ταφικές πρακτικές και οι κοινωνικές τους διαστάσεις ............................................................................. 955-967

Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Aspects of Life Histories from the Bronze Age Cemetery at Xeropigado Koiladas,Western Macedonia (poster) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 969-974

Aikaterini PAPANTHIMOU, †Angeliki PILALI and Evanthia PAPADOPOULOU, Archontiko Yiannitson: A Set-tlement in Macedonia during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium B.C. (poster) .................................... 975-980

Λιάνα ΣΤΕΦΑΝΗ και Νίκος ΜΕΡΟΥΣΗΣ, Αναζητώντας τη Μέση Εποχή του Χαλκού στη Μακεδονία.Παλιές και νέες έρευνες στην Ημαθία (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ............................................................................................. 981-986

Ευτυχία ΠΟΥΛΑΚΗ-ΠΑΝΤΕΡΜΑΛΗ, Ελένη ΚΛΙΝΑΚΗ, Σοφία ΚΟΥΛΙΔΟΥ, Ευτέρπη ΠΑΠΑΔΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ καιΑναστάσιος ΣΥΡΟΣ, Η Μέση και η αρχή της Ύστερης Εποχής Χαλκού στην περιοχή τουΜακεδονικού Ολύμπου (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) .............................................................................................................................................................. 987-993

Kyriaki PSARAKI and Stelios ANDREOU, Regional Processes and Interregional Interactions in NorthernGreece during the Early Second Millennium B.C. (poster) ................................................................................................................................................ 995-1003

BCH Suppl. 52

TABLE DES MATIÈRES 1045

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1045

Page 43: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Rozalia CHRISTIDOU, Middle Bronze Age Bone Tools from Sovjan, Southeastern Albania(poster) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1005-1012

Γαρυφαλιά ΜΕΤΑΛΛΗΝΟΥ, Η Μέση Χαλκοκρατία στα άκρα: η περίπτωση της Κέρκυρας ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1013-1023

Christina MERKOURI, MH  III/LH  I Pottery from Vivara (Gulf of Naples, Italy). A Contribution to theUnderstanding of an Enigmatic Period .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1025-1036

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1037-1039

Tables des matières .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1041-1046

BCH Suppl. 52

1046 TABLE DES MATIÈRES

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1046

Page 44: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1047

Page 45: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1048

Page 46: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

Cet ouvrage a été imprimé et reliéen cinq cents exemplaires

par Break In s.a. (société commerciale d’édition)à Athènes (Grèce)

ISBN 978-2-86958-210-1Imprimé en Grèce

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1049

Page 47: A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA

900_BCH Suppl. 52_Table des mat_BAT 12/9/10 6:38 PM Page1050