BIBLIOGRAFIA

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON MINOAN PEAK SANCTUARIES

M.P. NILSSON, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion (2nd ed. 1950), 76 and more recently, B. RUTKOWSKI, The Cult Places

of the Aegean (1986), 87-89. 2 Karetsou's excavations at Mt. Jouktas were carried out mainly between 1974 and 1985. Reports of her work were published in the

PraktArchEt beginning in 1974. A summary of her research between 1974 and 1979 appeared in "The Peak Sanctuary of Mt. Jouktas", in Sanctuaries and Cults,

137-153. For Peatfield's work, see "Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The Peak Sanctuary at Atsipadhes", Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2 (1992), 59-87,

with earlier references. 3 A. PEATFIELD, "Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: History and Society", OpAth 18 (1990), 117-123. See the more comprehensive discussion on the identifying features of peak sanctuaries in K. NOWICKI, "Some Remarks on the Pre- and Protopalatial Peak Sanctuary in Crete", Aegean Archaeology 1 (1994) in press. I am grateful to K. Nowicki for showing me his article in advance of publication. 4 Personal comunication. I have travelled with Nowicki to several peak sanctuaries in East Crete and I can vouch for the validity of his observation.

5 See L.V. WATROUS et al., "A Survey of the Western Mesara Plain in Crete: Preliminary Report of the 1984, 1986 and 1987 Field Seasons", Hesperia 62

(1993). 225.

GIS Variations on a Cretan Theme: *Minoan Peak Sanctuaries

(1,2)(2)(1,3)(4)S. Soetens, A. Sarris, K. Vansteenhuyse, S. Topouzi

(1) Université Catholique de Louvain, Département d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie, Place

B. Pascal 1, B – 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgique), ssoetens@yahoo.com (2) Laboratory of Geophysical and Satellite Remote Sensing & Archaeo-environment, Institute of Mediterranean Studies, F.O.R.T.H., Melissinou & N. Foka 130, P.O. Box119, GR-74100 Rethymnon, Crete (Greece), asaris@ret.forthnet.gr (3) Temple University, Department of Art History, Ritter Hall Annex, 13th Street and Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA, klaas_vansteen@hotmail.com (4) University of Athens, Department of Archaeology and History of Art, University Campus, GR-15784 Ilisia,

Athens, Greece, stopouzi@arch.uoa.gr

DIACHRONIC CHANGES IN MINOAN CAVE CULT** This paper borrows extensively from my current research in preparation for publication of my dissertation:E.L. TYREE, “Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri,Columbia (1974).Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Alan Peatfield and Christine Morris for providing a copy of theirunpublished manuscript and their willingness to discuss their work with me. I thank Heinrich Hall andChris Witmore for copies of their MA theses. I extend a special thanks to Anne Stewart for her inspiration,innumerable discussions, and her suggestions on many matters of this paper. I am grateful to Aleydis Van deMoortel, who very generously guided me through current work on Kamares ware, and to Yiannis Lagamizisfor the same on Bronze Age weapons. I thank the following for discussing their work: Anna Lucia D’Agata,

Mary Blomberg, Lucy Goodison and Eirini Gavrilaki. Many thanks to Erin Lopp and Jerolyn Morrison forallowing me to use their scenes of Kamares cave. I also thank readers of earlier versions: Anne Stewart,Aleydis Van de Moortel, Polymnia Muhly, Thea Politis, and Assaf Yasur-Landau.I have based my relative chronology on Rehak and Younger but I follow Popham’s traditionaldestruction date for Knossos which defines the end of the final Palatial period early in LM IIIA2(P. REHAK and J.G. YOUNGER, “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, andPostpalatial Crete,” AJA 102 (1998) 99; M.R. POPHAM, The Destruction of the Palace of Knossos.Pottery of the Late Minoan IIIA Period (1970) 85. Therefore, the following relative chronology is used:Protopalatial = MM IB-MM IINeopalatial = MM III-LM IAFinal Palatial = LM II-early LM IIIA2Postpalatial = late LM IIIA2-B-C to SubminoanThe following abbreviations are used:GOODMAN (1990) = F.D. GOODMAN, Where the Spirits Ride the Wind. Trance Journeys and other EcstaticExperiences (1990).GORE = B. GORE, Ecstatic Body Postures. An Alternate Reality Workbook (1995).HOGARTH = D.G. HOGARTH, “The Dictaean Cave. Preliminary report,” BSA 6 (1899-1900) 94-116.KANTA (1980) = A. KANTA, The Late Minoan III Period in Crete. A Survey of Sites, Pottery and their Distribution(1980).NAUMANN = U. NAUMANN, “Subminoische und protogeometrishce Bronzeplastik auf Kreta,” AthMittBeiheft 6 (1976).VERLINDEN = C. VERLINDEN, Les statuettes anthropomorphes crétoises en bronze et en plomb du IIIe millénaireau VIIe siècle av. J.-C. (1984).WATROUS (1996) = L.V. WATROUS with a contribution by Y.K. WIDENOR, The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus atPsychro. A Study of Extra-Urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete, Aegaeum 15 (1996).1 H.K. HALL, Ritual in Neolithic Crete, unpublished M. Litt thesis, Department of Classics, University CollegeDublin, The National University of Ireland (1999).2 G. NAKOU, “The Cutting Edge: A New Look at Early Aegean Metallurgy,” JMedA 8.2 (1995) 3-7, 20-22;HALL (supra n. 1) 144.3 Fuller publication of cave excavations is needed to verify the character of the Late and Final Neolithicassemblages and to substantiate the model; nevertheless, Hall’s proposal for Crete is sound and provides awelcomed new direction.4 HALL (supra n. 1) 187.5 For references see P. FAURE, Fonctions des cavernes crétoises (1964) 51-80.6 J.S. SOLES, The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete, Hesperiasuppl. XXIV (1992) 226-242.7 A. PEATFIELD, “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: History and Society,” OpAth 18 (1990) 124-125.8 PEATFIELD (supra n. 7) 125.9 PEATFIELD (supra n. 7) 125. The situation may be more complicated than this because SOLES ([supra n. 6]238) sees a MM IA proliferation of shrines connected with tombs.10 These include EM III sherds and sealstones, numerous enough to suggest that the cult began as early as EMIII (A. VASILAKIS, “Minvik} kerameik} apó to Idaíon ´Antron,” Pepragména tou ST’ Dieynoúw KrhtologikoúSunedríou [1990] 125). The few early bronze objects from Psychro probably belong to an EM burial (P.DEMARGNE, “Antiquités de Praesos et de l’antre Dictéen,” BCH 26 [1902] 571-583; J. BOARDMAN, The

Cretan Collection in Oxford [1961] 4; L.V. WATROUS, Lasithi. A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain inCrete. Hesperia Suppl. XVIII [1982] 11 n. 23, 61). L.V. WATROUS (“Review of Aegean Prehistory III: Cretefrom Earliest Prehistory through the Protopalatial Period,” AJA 98 [1994] 729-730; WATROUS [1996] 48n. 9) wrongly, in my opinion, redates these later (to the Protopalatial period, MM I-II) based on his recentbelief that gold objects were not made in Crete as early as EM.11 The others are Psychro, Kamares, and Eileithyia/Amnisos.12 Kamares cave is just below the summit of the eastern twin peak of the Kamares range of Mt. Ida, the highestmountain on Crete.13 E.g. Eileithyia Amnisos, Melidoni, and Trapeza Tylissou.14 They are Psychro, Skotino, Melidoni, and Kamares. Smaller caves can nevertheless have grand ceiling height,e.g. the Idaean Cave.15 E. Gavrilaki, pers. comm. (with thanks).16 I thank N. Marinatos for her comments on this matter.17 HOGARTH 109, fig. 40.2.18 C. MORRIS and A. PEATFIELD, “Feeling through the Body: Gesture in Cretan Bronze Age Religion,”Thinking through the Body. The First Lampeter Workshop in Archaeology, 20-22 June 1998 (forthcoming).19 For example, two Protopalatial postures from Atsipadhes, considered possible trance postures by Morrisand Peatfield, are the hands-to-center-of-chest and hands-to-stomach – the two most common postures atAtsipadhes (MORRIS and PEATFIELD [supra n. 18]).20 GOODMAN (1990) 222.21 F.D. GOODMAN, “Body Posture and the Religious Altered State of Consciousness: An ExperimentalInvestigation,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 26.3 (1986); GOODMAN (1990); I.M. LEWIS, Ecstatic Religion.A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession (1989); M. HARNER, The Way of the Shaman (1990); GORE.22 MORRIS and PEATFIELD (supra n. 18).23 This gesture is not among the trance inducing postures at Atsipadhes, where it is absent (C. Morris, pers.comm.). Nor does it appear to be present at Petsophas where only one published figurine may possibly havethis gesture (see B. RUTKOWSKI, Petsophas. A Cretan Peak Sanctuary [1991] 55, pl. 7.4). Nor does it occuron terracotta figurines in caves, which (unlike peak sanctuaries) virtually lack terracotta anthropomorphicfigurines belonging to the palatial periods.24 GOODMAN (1990) 25-26. Scientific research on other altered states (including hypnosis and meditation)demonstrates that none of the other altered states studied show the same combination of physiologicaleffects as those produced by a posture induced trance (GORE 11-12).25 The one that is not from Psychro is from Tsoutsouros (VERLINDEN no. 109) and it shows the right handplaced on the chest and the left is straight at the side.26 There may be two exceptions. One figurine (VERLINDEN no. 92) may have the ‘singing shaman’ postureused for healing (GOODMAN [supra n. 21] 92, fig. 2; GORE 272-277 with figures). Although the handsare held lower than the position used by Goodman or Gore in their experimental work this figurine maybe comparable (poor casting and corrosion make it difficult to be sure) to some of their ethnographiccomparanda (GOODMAN [1990] 144-145, pls 45, 47c and 215, pl. 69 left). The other (VERLINDEN no. 91),with arms raised high and placed in front of the chest without touching, has a terracotta parallel at Petsophas

(RUTKOWSKI [supra n. 23] pls 3.3, 4.3). It may be a variant of the predominate gesture of Postpalatialbronzes from caves with the difference being that the Postpalatial gesture, demonstrably a trance posture,shows the fists clenched together. Another gesture, the ‘rolling arm’ gesture (VERLINDEN no. 19), is notdiscussed here. This gesture, with the arms seemingly revolving around each other, continues into the finalPalatial period (VERLINDEN no. 123).27 C. DAVARAS, “Trois bronzes Minoens de Skoteino,” BCH 93 (1969) 622-624.

28 At Kamares the principle MM ritual place is apparently at the bottom of the main room (areas nos. 2-3),behind a line of fallen boulders and adjacent to the entrance to recess no. A, which is pitch dark (R.M.DAWKINS and M.L.W. LAISTNER, “The Excavation of the Kamares Cave in Crete,” BSA 19 [1912-13] 10,pl. 2). Although Dawkins and Laistner are not specific about their sherds, they do say that this spot yieldedthe bulk of the MM pottery. Walberg (G. WALBERG, Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery [1983] 97) dates thepublished MM pottery to MM IB-MM IIIB. At Melidoni, the ritual area is the north recess, itself quite dark.This recess has a very small hole that drops down into the enormous lower level of the cave, which receivesno natural light. The north recess was first used for ritual functions as early as MM IIB-MM IIIA (basedon Kamares style sherds) but its phase of most intense use, judging from the greatest quantity of pottery,was MM IIIB-LM IB (I. TZEDAKIS and E. GAVRILAKI, “H anaskaf} sto sp}laio Melidoníou,” Pepragménatou Z’ Dieynoúw Krhtologikoú Sunedríou [1995] 888-891). This room was used again later, in LM III A-C.At Psychro, the interior ritual area is immediately adjacent to the dark chamber mentioned above, whichcontained the double axe in a niche. This double axe, as well as many of the bronze objects from the ritualarea (the stalagmites around the pool of water) most probably belong to the Neopalatial period - althoughWATROUS ([1996] 48) believes that some of the double axes are Protopalatial based on possible parallelsfrom an ash layer of this date at Mt. Juktas peak sanctuary (A. KARETSOU, “The Peak Sanctuary of Mt.Juktas,” in Sanctuaries and Cults 146, 148 fig. 14). The stalagmite ritual area (around the pool of water)continued in use into the LM III period and perhaps beyond. At Skotino, the ritual area (‘the room of thealtar-like formation’) is adjacent to the descent into the depths of the cave, which are dark, as the name ofthe cave implies. This room was in use during the Neopalatial period, based on pottery and three bronzefigurines, and it possibly continued in use into LM III (DAVARAS [supra n. 27] 222; KANTA [1980] 68).

29 HARNER (supra n. 21) 22, 24. Shamans typically work at night or in a dark room. Darkness lessens thedistraction of the ordinary reality on the consciousness and the experience.30 Percussion instruments are one of several means (including singing) of obtaining a sonic drive, which isnecessary, together with concentration, for entering an altered state (HARNER [supra n. 21] 22). Multiplesound frequencies apparently block the left-hemisphere and simultaneously stimulate the peripheral nervoussystem (GORE 10). Dancing may also be used, as attested by the Whirling Dervishes.31 For a discussion of the location of the Diktaian cave see R.F. WILLETS, Cretan Cults and Festivals (1962)215-216.32 WILLETS (supra n. 31) 216. STRABO 10.3.7, 10.3.11.33 See WILLETS (supra n. 31) 216.34 Archaeological and ethnographic evidence suggests that shamanic methods are at least twenty or thirtythousand years old (P.T. FURST, Hallucinogens and Culture [1976] 4; HARNER [supra n. 21] xvii, 42; GORE19-20).44 E. Loeta TYREEIt is a non-technological method of developing the capacities of the human mind for healthand healing.35 In fact, the same basic principles of shamanic power and healing have evolved indiffering ecological and cultural environments.36 The shamanic technique is learned throughacquired knowledge and experience. This method uses the mind and body (usually withoutdrugs) to heal, cope with adversity, and to engage in divination. Its aim, an altered state ofconsciousness, is essential; loss of consciousness is not necessary – contrary to our Westernmisconception of the word ‘trance.’37 A trance can, for instance, be sustained by sonic driving(such as drumming) or dancing. When this activity ceases, the person returns to the ordinarystate of consciousness.Evidence exists from caves for the representation of special personages. Depictions ofMinoan ‘priests’ do occur in Crete. They are distinguished iconographically by their long robes(with diagonal bands), their special hairstyle (short in front, longer in back), and their insigniaof authority (the curved axe or stone mace).38 Representations of such priests, however, areunknown in caves. On the other hand, some bronze male figurines have an unusual feature,although not unique to caves.39 That is, they wear a sacred knot that protrudes prominently

from their belt (Pl. XIc).40 However, in all other aspects – their clothing, hand-to-head gesture,and find spots at entrances and in interior ritual areas – they correspond to the other malefigurines and thus there is no good evidence to suggest that males wearing a sacred knot wereshamans. The sacred knot distinguishes them only as special personages with indeterminablefunctions.Not only the absence of light but also its presence may have been a major component ofa cave experience. Upon returning from the darkness, at a certain time of day and dependingupon the cave and its orientation, light entering the cave can take on a truly exceptionalquality, which I call a ‘light phenomenon.’ A group of ten of us experienced such an eventat Kamares cave, which may not have gone unobserved by Minoans.41 As we ascended fromthe depths, we were suddenly transfixed by a glow of light coming from the mouth of thecave (Pl. XId). It highlighted the step-like ceiling of the cave, producing a radiant light with apowerful sense of visual depth.The symbolic significance of such an experience for Minoans can only be hypothesized,but possibly its perception was a divine radiance and/or a transition from one state to another(from dark to light or from one world/condition to another). Light also refers to the shaman’sability to ‘see’ in the dark, both literally (as mentioned above) and metaphorically, seeing whatothers can not perceive.42 The importance of light in caves has also been suggested for cavesin other areas. Whitehouse suggests, for Neolithic caves in Italy, an emphasis on light, andperhaps even the sun, as the source of light without which we cannot live.43 It is the oppositeof what one would expect for caves, but pairs of opposites, such as light and dark, contrast oureveryday world with that of the sacred.35 HARNER (supra n. 21) xvii.36 HARNER (supra n. 21) 42.37 HARNER (supra n. 21) 49.38 Minoan Religion 127-130, fig. 88.39 VERLINDEN 98, 101-102, 114, 138.40 VERLINDEN (138) recognizes a religious personage in Minoan bronze figurines depicting a mature malefigure with stocky physique and fine clothes (but not a robe). One of this type, belonging to the Neopalatialperiod, comes from Skotino (VERLINDEN no. 27). The following is a list of figurines from caves wearing

a sacred knot: Psychro (VERLINDEN nos. 25, 49, and 58); Skotino (possibly VERLINDEN no. 27); TrapezaTylissou (probably VERLINDEN no. 42 and possibly nos. 53 and 54).41 The group included Jennifer Moody’s study team from Chania. We experienced the event on July 17, 1999at approximately 3:30 p.m. It occurred when we left the pitch dark ‘recess A’ and were just beginning ourascent to leave the cave. We were not far from Dawkins and Laistner’s find-spots nos. 2-3 where they foundthe majority of the Middle Minoan pottery. I am very grateful to Erin Lopp for the photographs that she tookthat day, and which I am using here, and to Jerolyn Morrison who made the drawing of the cave entrance,also included this in paper. Additionally, I thank Heinrich Hall who made the arrangements for the groupto join me.42 HARNER 28 At Kamares the principle MM ritual place is apparently at the bottom of the main room (areas nos. 2-3),behind a line of fallen boulders and adjacent to the entrance to recess no. A, which is pitch dark (R.M.DAWKINS and M.L.W. LAISTNER, “The Excavation of the Kamares Cave in Crete,” BSA 19 [1912-13] 10,pl. 2). Although Dawkins and Laistner are not specific about their sherds, they do say that this spot yieldedthe bulk of the MM pottery. Walberg (G. WALBERG, Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery [1983] 97) dates thepublished MM pottery to MM IB-MM IIIB. At Melidoni, the ritual area is the north recess, itself quite dark.This recess has a very small hole that drops down into the enormous lower level of the cave, which receivesno natural light. The north recess was first used for ritual functions as early as MM IIB-MM IIIA (basedon Kamares style sherds) but its phase of most intense use, judging from the greatest quantity of pottery,was MM IIIB-LM IB (I. TZEDAKIS and E. GAVRILAKI, “H anaskaf} sto sp}laio Melidoníou,” Pepragménatou Z’ Dieynoúw Krhtologikoú Sunedríou [1995] 888-891). This room was used again later, in LM III A-C.At Psychro, the interior ritual area is immediately adjacent to the dark chamber mentioned above, whichcontained the double axe in a niche. This double axe, as well as many of the bronze objects from the ritualarea (the stalagmites around the pool of water) most probably belong to the Neopalatial period - althoughWATROUS ([1996] 48) believes that some of the double axes are Protopalatial based on possible parallelsfrom an ash layer of this date at Mt. Juktas peak sanctuary (A. KARETSOU, “The Peak Sanctuary of Mt.Juktas,” in Sanctuaries and Cults 146, 148 fig. 14). The stalagmite ritual area (around the pool of water)continued in use into the LM III period and perhaps beyond. At Skotino, the ritual area (‘the room of thealtar-like formation’) is adjacent to the descent into the depths of the cave, which are dark, as the name ofthe cave implies. This room was in use during the Neopalatial period, based on pottery and three bronzefigurines, and it possibly continued in use into LM III (DAVARAS [supra n. 27] 222; KANTA [1980] 68).29 HARNER (supra n. 21) 22, 24. Shamans typically work at night or in a dark room. Darkness lessens thedistraction of the ordinary reality on the consciousness and the experience.

30 Percussion instruments are one of several means (including singing) of obtaining a sonic drive, which isnecessary, together with concentration, for entering an altered state (HARNER [supra n. 21] 22). Multiplesound frequencies apparently block the left-hemisphere and simultaneously stimulate the peripheral nervoussystem (GORE 10). Dancing may also be used, as attested by the Whirling Dervishes.31 For a discussion of the location of the Diktaian cave see R.F. WILLETS, Cretan Cults and Festivals (1962)215-216.32 WILLETS (supra n. 31) 216. STRABO 10.3.7, 10.3.11.33 See WILLETS (supra n. 31) 216.34 Archaeological and ethnographic evidence suggests that shamanic methods are at least twenty or thirtythousand years old (P.T. FURST, Hallucinogens and Culture [1976] 4; HARNER [supra n. 21] xvii, 42; GORE19-20).44 E. Loeta TYREEIt is a non-technological method of developing the capacities of the human mind for healthand healing.35 In fact, the same basic principles of shamanic power and healing have evolved indiffering ecological and cultural environments.36 The shamanic technique is learned throughacquired knowledge and experience. This method uses the mind and body (usually withoutdrugs) to heal, cope with adversity, and to engage in divination. Its aim, an altered state ofconsciousness, is essential; loss of consciousness is not necessary – contrary to our Westernmisconception of the word ‘trance.’37 A trance can, for instance, be sustained by sonic driving(such as drumming) or dancing. When this activity ceases, the person returns to the ordinarystate of consciousness.Evidence exists from caves for the representation of special personages. Depictions ofMinoan ‘priests’ do occur in Crete. They are distinguished iconographically by their long robes(with diagonal bands), their special hairstyle (short in front, longer in back), and their insigniaof authority (the curved axe or stone mace).38 Representations of such priests, however, areunknown in caves. On the other hand, some bronze male figurines have an unusual feature,although not unique to caves.39 That is, they wear a sacred knot that protrudes prominentlyfrom their belt (Pl. XIc).40 However, in all other aspects – their clothing, hand-to-head gesture,and find spots at entrances and in interior ritual areas – they correspond to the other malefigurines and thus there is no good evidence to suggest that males wearing a sacred knot wereshamans. The sacred knot distinguishes them only as special personages with indeterminablefunctions.

Not only the absence of light but also its presence may have been a major component ofa cave experience. Upon returning from the darkness, at a certain time of day and dependingupon the cave and its orientation, light entering the cave can take on a truly exceptionalquality, which I call a ‘light phenomenon.’ A group of ten of us experienced such an eventat Kamares cave, which may not have gone unobserved by Minoans.41 As we ascended fromthe depths, we were suddenly transfixed by a glow of light coming from the mouth of thecave (Pl. XId). It highlighted the step-like ceiling of the cave, producing a radiant light with apowerful sense of visual depth.The symbolic significance of such an experience for Minoans can only be hypothesized,but possibly its perception was a divine radiance and/or a transition from one state to another(from dark to light or from one world/condition to another). Light also refers to the shaman’sability to ‘see’ in the dark, both literally (as mentioned above) and metaphorically, seeing whatothers can not perceive.42 The importance of light in caves has also been suggested for cavesin other areas. Whitehouse suggests, for Neolithic caves in Italy, an emphasis on light, andperhaps even the sun, as the source of light without which we cannot live.43

It is the oppositeof what one would expect for caves, but pairs of opposites, such as light and dark, contrast oureveryday world with that of the sacred.35 HARNER (supra n. 21) xvii.36 HARNER (supra n. 21) 42.37 HARNER (supra n. 21) 49.38 Minoan Religion 127-130, fig. 88.39 VERLINDEN 98, 101-102, 114, 138.40 VERLINDEN (138) recognizes a religious personage in Minoan bronze figurines depicting a mature malefigure with stocky physique and fine clothes (but not a robe). One of this type, belonging to the Neopalatialperiod, comes from Skotino (VERLINDEN no. 27). The following is a list of figurines from caves wearinga sacred knot: Psychro (VERLINDEN nos. 25, 49, and 58); Skotino (possibly VERLINDEN no. 27); TrapezaTylissou (probably VERLINDEN no. 42 and possibly nos. 53 and 54).41 The group included Jennifer Moody’s study team from Chania. We experienced the event on July 17, 1999at approximately 3:30 p.m. It occurred when we left the pitch dark ‘recess A’ and were just beginning ourascent to leave the cave. We were not far from Dawkins and Laistner’s find-spots nos. 2-3 where they foundthe majority of the Middle Minoan pottery. I am very grateful to Erin Lopp for the photographs that she tookthat day, and which I am using here, and to Jerolyn Morrison who made the drawing of the cave entrance,also included this in paper. Additionally, I thank Heinrich Hall who made the arrangements for the groupto join me.

42 HARNER 45 G. HENRIKSSON and M. BLOMBERG, “Evidence for Minoan Astronomical Observations from the PeakSanctuaries on Petsophas and Traostalos,” OpAth 21 (1996) 99-114.46 L. GOODISON, this volume.47 Psychro: WATROUS (1996) 31-40, 49. Amnisos: P. Betancourt, pers. comm. Skotino: FAURE (supra n. 5)164.48 Y. HAMILAKIS, “Wine, Oil and the Dialectics of Power in Bronze Age Crete: A Review of the Evidence,”OJA 15.1 (1996) 24-25.49 At Kamares, jars constitute the bulk of the Protopalatial coarse ware pottery. These jars are said to becomparable to an illustrated pithoid jar (DAWKINS and LAISTNER [supra n. 28] 18, 28, pl. 8a). If so, theyare a manageable size for transportation by donkey to the cave (an observation made to me by Aleydis Vande Moortel). For jar fragments from Psychro see WATROUS (1996) 31, 34-35.50 This MM IIIB-LM IB assemblage was found in the north recess and includes cooking vessels (tripod cookingpots and frying pans); eating utensils (plates); drinking vessels (cups and jugs); and some jars (TZEDAKISand GAVRILAKI [supra n. 28] 891).51 F. HALBHERR and P. ORSI, “Scoperte nell’antro di Psychrò,” Museo Italiano di antichità classica 2 (1888) 906;HOGARTH 98, 101.52 G. WALBERG, “Early Cretan Sanctuaries: The Pottery,” in Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings of the UppsalaSymposium 1985 (1987) 172.54 For Knossian pottery at Psychro see WATROUS (1996) 41, nos. 110-111. For the Fp1 tablet mentioning oilofferings to Dictaean Zeus and the Gg705 tablet listing honey for Eileithyia at Amnisos see Docs2 305-306,310.55 NAUMANN.58 GOODMAN (1990) 151-152; GORE 74-79. They call this posture the ‘empowerment’ posture and they reportthat the resulting trance produces flows of energy that give the feeling of being able to do anything.59 They are NAUMANN nos. S37 and S38 (VERLINDEN nos. 125 and 177) – both in the Ashmolean Museum.GOODMAN ([1990] 151-152) was the first to note that the ‘empowerment’ posture occurs in Minoan Crete(and in Mycenae). An unspecified figurine in the Herakleion Museum was identified by Robinette Kennedyas having this posture (reported by GORE ([1995] 78).60 GOODMAN (1990) 152. The Mycenaean figurines are the Tau figurines which have the arms, at shoulderheight, placed over the breasts with the breasts rarely showing above the arms (E. FRENCH, “TheDevelopment of Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines,” BSA 66 [1971] 124, pl. 18a-b). They range in date fromLH IIIA2-IIIB with a peak period in mid LH IIIB (FRENCH [supra] 125).61 GOODMAN (1990) 152, pl. 49; GORE 75.62 Raised high but hands not touching: NAUMANN nos. S34, S36, S39 (VERLINDEN nos. 174, 175, 127).Hands touching but arms not raised to shoulder height: S33 and S35. A male figurine from Psychro,NAUMANN no. S23 (VERLINDEN no. 154), also shows the latter arm and hand position. 64 Dates for these items will be fully referenced in a future publication. The bronze arrowheads are morebroadly dated than the rest, with a range of LM II-Postminoan. None of the industrial tools from Psychro canbe securely dated to the Postpalatial period. I thank Ioannis Lagamtzis for references and discussion.65 There are several, unpublished, bronze dagger or knife blades and a lance point from Skotino (DAVARAS

[supra n. 27] 622).66 Those that may date earlier are c. thirty bronze needles, dated probably MM III-LM I by WATROUS ([1996]50 n. 59), and six finger rings, dated LM IIIA-B by WATROUS ([1996] 53).67 These are dated LM IIIC to early Protogeometric by BOARDMAN ([supra n. 10] 32-42) and LM IIICby WATROUS ([1996] 53). There are bone pins and a crystal bead from Skotino that are unpublished(DAVARAS [supra n. 27] 622).68 A.L. D’AGATA, this volume.69 WATROUS (1996) 41.70 VASILAKIS (supra n. 10) 134.71 KANTA (1980) 72.72 FAURE (supra n. 5) 164.73 KANTA (1980) 68.74 TZEDAKIS and GAVRILAKI (supra n. 28) 889-890.75 Only Patsos and Idaean Cave have both animal figurines and horns of consecration. For the Patsos terracottaanimal figurines and horns of consecration see KOUROU and KARETSOU ([supra n. 57] 125-142). For theIdaean Cave horn of consecration, and a mention of large figurines, see SAKELLARAKIS ([supra n. 56] 209,213, fig. 7). Liliano, a cave (or rock shelter) of unknown location, has LM IIIB terracotta finds, includinga bull head fragment, in the Herakleion Museum (KANTA [1980] 72). The cave is presumed to be in thePediada district south of Kastelli near the village of Liliano. The author tried to locate the cave in the early1970’s (TYREE [supra n. *] 24). Xirokambos, though described as a cave by Davaras, is a rock shelter fromwhich there are unpublished LM III painted terracotta animal figurines (C. DAVARAS, “Arxaióthtew kaìMnhmeîa Anatolik}w Kr}thw.” AD 28 (1973) [1977] B2, 592). The terracotta assemblage from the upper caveat Psychro is not rich as it includes only a few animal figurines and no horns of consecration. For the six,or possibly seven, LM IIIB-C animal figurines from Psychro see WATROUS ([1996] 41-42, nos. 117 [twofragments from either the same or two figurines] 120-122, and 124, pls. 25d and 26d). This is in additionto an earlier animal figurine (HOGARTH 104, fig. 33), which is dated LM IIIA2 by N. KOUROU and A.KARETSOU (“Terracotta wheelmade bull figurines from central Crete,” in TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomenand Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, 76 A. KANTA (“The Post-palatial Period in the Area of Amari. Trade and Communication between the northand south coasts of Crete,” in Sybrita La Valle di Amari fra Bronzo e Ferro [1994] 72-73) notes a particularlyclose similarity between the assemblages of two of the rock shelters (Patsos and Idaean Cave) and that of theopen-air sanctuary at Ayia Triada (Piazzale dei Sacceli), which has links with the Amari valley.77 KOUROU and KARETSOU ([supra n. 75] 107) point out that terracotta wheelmade figurines are the mostfrequent dedication in open-air sanctuaries (including Patsos rock shelter) during LM IIIC and Subminoanand that these shrines are concentrated in central Crete. Similarly, painted clay horns of consecration fita comparable pattern. According to A.L. D’AGATA (“Late Minoan Crete and Horns of Consecration: ASymbol in Action,” in EIKVN 253-255), they were produced in quantity during LM IIIC, and, they tooconstituted a popular votive offering in open-air and cave sanctuaries within a limited geographical area(central Crete), with dedications continuing into Subminoan. A.L. D’AGATA (“The Shrines on the Piazzale

dei Sacelli at Ayia Triadha. The LM IIIC and SM material: A Summary,” in Crète Mycénienne 98) alsonotes that the terracotta assemblage at the Ayia Triada open-air shrine is characterized by three types ofwheelmade terracottas: bulls, horns of consecration, and fantastic animals.78 The major ritual objects of the bench shrine at Kavousi consists of statues of the goddess with up-raisedhands, snake tubes, plaques, and kalathoi (G.C. GESELL, “Ritual Kalathoi in the Shrine at Kavousi,” inMELETEMATA I, 283). Generally most, if not all, of these objects typify other bench shrines (for example,Gazi, Gournia, Kannia, Karphi, Knossos (Shrine of the Double Axe), and Prinias, which are all cataloguedand discussed by G.C. GESELL (Town, Palace and House Cult in Minoan Crete [1985]).79 The only object found in a cave, which is typical of a ‘bench sanctuary assemblage,’ is a fragment of a snaketube with multiple handles found in the ‘Eileithyia’ cave at Tsoutsouros (KANTA [1980] 85).80 GESELL (supra n. 78 [1985]) 47.

81 GESELL (supra n. 78 [1985]) 47.

The Minoan peak sanctuary landscape through a GIS approachArcheologia e Calcolatori13, 2002, 161-170THE MINOAN PEAK SANCTUARY LANDSCAPETHROUGH A GIS APPROACH1.

PEATFIELD 1994b, 14 peak sanctuaries have been excavated, only three extensivelypublished; Petsofas: RUTKOWSKI 1991, passim; Iuktas: KARETSOU 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977,1978, 1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1984a, 1984b, 1985, et al.; Atsipadhes: PEATFIELD 1992; MORRIS,PEATFIELD 1995; NOWICKI 1994, 41-42; PEATFIELD 1991, 1992b, 1993, 1994c, 1995, 1996.162The Minoan peak sanctuary landscape through a GIS approach

the Minoan palaces and the Bronze Age Aegean.S. SOETENS, J. DRIESSENDépartement d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’ArtUniversité Catholique de LouvainA. SARRIS, S. TOPOUZILaboratory of Geophysical - Satellite Remote Sensing & Archaeo-environmentInstitute of Mediterranean StudiesFoundation of Research & Technology (F.O.R.T.)167S. Soetens, J. Driessen, A. Sarris, S. TopouziAcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the Institute of Aegean Prehistory for financial sup-port of the project “Building a cultural landscape model of Minoan peak sanctuaries througha GIS approach”, part of the wider framework “A Topography of Power. Studies on thePolitical Structures of Minoan Crete and Etruria” (http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/FLTR/ARKE/Arka/accueil/fsr.html). Very much appreciated were the conversations with Dr. A. Peatfield and Dr.K. Nowicki on the subject, and the help of several friends during the GPS (Global PositioningSystem) fieldtrips, more specifically: Tim Cunningham, Spyros Dimanopoulos, XenophonFrantzis, Anthi Giourou, Vangelis Kevgas, Despina Sgouraki, Eleftheria Tamiolaki, AchilleasTripolitsiotis, Klio Tzanaki, Katerina Tzanetea. This paper presents the preliminary results ofthe project.REFERENCES«AR» = Annual Report of the Managing Committee of the British School at Athens.«BCH» = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique.«Ergon» = To Ergon tes Archaiologikes Etaireias.«Prakt» = Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias.BLACKMAN D. 1996-97, «AR», 120.BLACKMAN D. 1997-98, «AR», 120-124.BLACKMAN D. 1998-99, «AR», 123-124.BLACKMAN D. 1999-2000, «AR», 148.DRIESSEN J. 2001, History and hierarchy. Preliminary observations on the settlement pat-tern of Minoan Crete, in K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean, Sheffield Studiesin Archaeology (in press).FAURE P. 1969, Sur trois sortes de sanctuaires crétois, «BCH», 93, 174-213.FAURE P. 1972, Cultes populaires dans la Crète antique, «BCH», 96, 389-426.GAFFNEY V., VAN LEUSEN M. 1995, Postscript – GIS, environmental determinism and ar-chaeology, in G. LOCK, Z. STANI (eds.), Archaeology and Geographical Informa-tion Systems, A European Perspective, London-Bristol, Taylor & Francis, 367-382.HENRIKSSON G., BLOMBERG M. 1996, Evidence for Minoan Astronomical Observations fromthe Peak Sanctuaries on Petsophas and Traostalos, «Opuscula Atheniensia», XXI:6, 99-114.

KARETSOU A. 1974, «Prakt», 228-239.KARETSOU A. 1975, «Prakt», 330-342.KARETSOU A. 1976, «Prakt», 408-418.KARETSOU A. 1977, «Prakt», 419-420.KARETSOU A. 1978, «Prakt», 232-258.KARETSOU A. 1980, «Prakt», 337-363.KARETSOU A. 1981a, The peak sanctuary of Mt. Juktas, in R. HÄGG, N. MARINATOS (eds.),Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First Interna-tional Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (May 1980), Stockolm, Swed-ish Institute in Athens, 137-153.KARETSOU A. 1981b, «Prakt», 405-408.KARETSOU A. 1984a, «Prakt», 600-614.KARETSOU A. 1984b, «Ergon», 111-115.KARETSOU A. 1985, «Ergon», 83-87.168The Minoan peak sanctuary landscape through a GIS approachKVAMME K. 1997, Ranters Corner: bringing the camps together: GIS and ED, «Archaeo-logical Computing Newsletter», 47, 1-5.

MOODY J., PEATFIELD A., MARKOULAKI S. 1996, The Ayios Vasilios Valley Archaeological Sur-vey: A preliminary report, in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of CretanStudies, Iraklion, Crete, Greece, Society of Cretan Historical Studies, 359-371.MORRIS CHR., PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1995, Pottery from the peak sanctuary of Atsipadhes Korakias,Ay Vasiliou, Rethymnon, in Proceedings of the 7th International Cretological Con-gress (Rethymnon 1990), Society of Cretan Historical Studies, 643-646.NOWICKI K. 1991, Some remarks on the distribution of peak sanctuaries in Middle MinoanCrete, «ArcheologiaWar (Warsaw)», XLII, 143-145.NOWICKI K. 1994, Some remarks on the Pre- and Protopalatial peak sanctuaries in Crete,«Aegean Archaeology», 1, 31-48.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1983, The topography of Minoan peak sanctuaries, «Annual of the Brit-ish School at Athens», 78, 273-279.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1987, Palace and peak: The political and religious relationship betweenpalaces and peak sanctuaries, in R. HÄGG, N. MARINATOS (eds.), The Function ofthe Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at theSwedish Institute in Athens (June 1984), Swedish Institute in Athens, Series in 4°,35, Stockholm, 89-93.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1990, Minoan peak sanctuaries: History and society, «OpusculaAtheniensia», 18, 117-132.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1991, Crete Atsipadhes Archaeological Report 1991, «AR», 26.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1992, Rural ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The peak sanctuary at Atsipadhes,«Cambridge Archaeological Journal», 2 (1), 59-87.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1992b, Crete Atsipadhes Archaeological Report 1992, «AR», 27.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1993, Crete Atsipadhes Archaeological Report 1993, «AR», 31-32.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1994a, After the ‘Big Bang’ - What? Or Minoan symbols and shrinesbeyond palatial collapse, in S.E. ALCOCK, R. OSBORNE (eds.), Placing the Gods,Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Greece, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 19-36.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1994b, The Atsipadhes Korakias peak sanctuary Project, «Classics Ire-land», 1 (http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/94/Peatfield94.html).PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1994c, Crete Atsipadhes Archaeological Report 1994, «AR», 23-35.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1995, Crete Atsipadhes Archaeological Report 1995, «AR», 25.PEATFIELD A.A.D. 1996, Crete Atsipadhes Archaeological Report 1996, «AR», 26.RUTKOWSKI B. 1988, Minoan peak sanctuaries: The topography and architecture, in R.LAFFINEUR (ed.), «AEGAEUM 2. Annales d’archéologie égéenne de l’Université deLiège», 71-100. RUTKOWSKI B. 1991, Petsofas. A Cretan Peak Sanctuary, Studies and Monographs in Medi-terranean Archaeology and Civilization, I.1, Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences.SOETENS S., SARRIS A., TOPOUZI S. 2001, Peak sanctuaries in the Minoan cultural landscape,thin 9 International Congress of Cretan Studies, Elounda.SOETENS S., SARRIS A., TOPOUZI S., TRIPOLITSIOTIS A. 2002, GIS modelling of the Minoanpeak sanctuaries of East Crete, in G. BURENHULT (ed.), Archaeological Informatics.Pushing the Envelope, Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Ar-chaeology (Visby 2001), BAR International Series 1016, Oxford, 129-138.TOMLINSON R.A. 1989-90, «AR», 78.TOMLINSON R.A. 1993-94, «AR», 84.TOMLINSON R.A. 1994-95, «AR», 72.WHEATLEY D. 1995, Cumulative viewshed Analysis: A GIS based method for investigatingintervisibility, and its archaeological application, in G. LOCK, Z. STAN I (eds.),Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems, A European Perspective, Lon-don-Bristol, Taylor & Francis, 171-186.169

S. Soetens, J. Driessen, A. Sarris, S. TopouziABSTRACTThe research project, “Building a cultural landscape model of Minoan peak sanc-tuaries through a GIS approach”, based on the collaboration between the Institute ofMediterranean Studies (F.O.R.T.H.) and the Université Catholique de Louvain, aims toredefine the peak sanctuary, clarify its function, and examine the relation between thecultural and natural variables, which characterize the distribution of these sites in theCretan landscape.To accomplish these goals we used advanced mapping techniques, satellite remotesensing, statistical analysis and Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Intervisibility isinvestigated with viewshed analysis. A chronological evolution of the peak sanctuarylandscape is proposed, explaining the location of the sanctuaries, in relation to eachother and other site types.

S. Soetens Affiliation: Département d'Archéologie, Université Catholique de Louvain B-1348-Louvain-la-

Neuve, Belgique (but living in Greece, see below) Address: Laboratory of Geophysical - Satellite Remote Sensing & Archaeo-environment Institute of Mediterranean Studies –

Foundation of Research & Technology (FORTH) Melissinou & Nik. Foka 130, PO. Box 119, Rethymnon 74100, Crete, Greece Tel.: +3(0) 97 4238106

Fax.: +3(0) 831 25810 ssoetens@yahoo.com

A. Sarris, S. Topouzi, A. Tripolitsiotis

Laboratory of Geophysical - Satellite Remote Sensing & Archaeo-environment Institute of Mediterranean Studies

Foundation of Research & Technology (FORTH) Melissinou & Nik. Foka 130, PO. Box 119, Rethymnon 74100, Crete, Greece

asaris@ret.forthnet.gr Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium

Institute of Mediterranean Studies Foundation of Research & Technology (F.O.R.T.H.) (Rethymnon, Greece) 2GIS Modeling of the Minoan Peak Sanctuaries of East Crete

MINOAN PEAK SANCTUARIES: REASSESSING THEIR ORIGINS1 P. FAURE, “Cultes de sommets et cultes de cavernes en Crète,” BCH 87 (1963) 493-508; ID., “Nouvellesrecherches sur les trois sortes de sanctuaires crétois,” BCH 91 (1967) 114-150; ID., “Sur trois sortes desanctuaires crétois,” BCH 93 (1969) 174-213; B. RUTKOWSKI, Cult Places in the Aegean (1972) 152-188; ID.,Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: The Topography and Architecture, Aegaeum 2 (1988) 71-99; ID., The Cult Places ofthe Aegean (1986) 73-98; ID., Petsophas: a Cretan Peak Sanctuary (1991); A. PEATFIELD, “The Topographyof Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” BSA 78 (1983) 273-280; ID., “Minoan peak sanctuaries: history and society,”OpAth 18 (1990) 117-131; ID., “Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The Peak Sanctuary at Atsipadhes,” CAJ2 (1992) 59-87; L.V. WATROUS, “Some Observations on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in POLITEIA 393-403;K. NOWICKI, “Some Remarks on the Pre- and Protopalatial Peak Sanctuaries in Crete,” Aegean Archaeology1 (1994) 31-48.2 J.F. CHERRY, “Generalisation and the archaeology of the state,” in D. GREEN, C. HASELGROVE and M.SPRIGGS (eds), Social Organisation and Settlement (BAR Suppl. 47) 411-437; PEATFIELD (supra n. 1, 1990)124.3 PEATFIELD (supra n. 1, 1990) 125; on different interpretation of the “earliest” material from Iouktas seeWATROUS (supra n. 1) 394.5 A. KARETSOU, “The Peak Sanctuary at Mt. Juktas,” in Sanctuaries and Cults 145.6 A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “Atsipades Korakias,” The British School at Athens, Annual Report of the Managing Committee

for the session 1990-91 (1992) 26; see also the paper by C. MORRIS and V. BATTEN on the Atsipades Korakiaspottery, given during the 8th International Cretological Congress, Herakleion 1996 (in print); K. BRANIGAN,“Prehistoric and early historic settlement in the Ziros region, eastern Crete,” BSA 93 (1998) 58.7 BRANIGAN (supra n. 6) 57. 8 BRANIGAN (supra n. 6) 58.9 K. NOWICKI, “Final Neolithic Refugees or Early Bronze Age Newcomers? The Problem of Defensible Sitesin Crete in the Late Fourth Millennium B.C.,” in MELETEMATA 575-581.10 FAURE 1969 (supra n. 1) 176 and A. MacGillivray and S. Hood personal communication.11 NOWICKI (supra n. 9).12 BRANIGAN (supra n. 6) Fig. 15.13 MORRIS and BATTEN (supra n. 6).14 L.V. WATROUS, The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro (1996) 73.15 The same phenomenon was recorded by WATROUS (supra n. 14) 73.

DIVINITY AND PERFORMANCEON MINOAN PEAK SANCTUARIES** Acknowledgements: Ideally this paper should be read in conjunction with Christine Morris’s and myjoint papers for the Lampeter University BODY conference (1998), and the Norwegian Institute in AthensCelebrations conference (1999). It represents a methodological counterpoint to those papers. As always Icould not have written this paper without Christine’s supportive and constructive criticism. Thanks too areowed to Robin Hägg, with Robert Laffineur, the organiser of this conference. He has been a constant sourceof support from the beginning of my career, and for that I am especially grateful.1 C. RENFREW, The Archaeology of Cult (1985) 12.2 M. SPIRO, “Religion: problems of definition and explanation,” in M. BANTON (ed.) AnthropologicalApproaches to the Study of Religion (1966) 85-126.3 C. GEERTZ, “Religion as a cultural system,” in BANTON (supra n. 2) 1-46.4 S. TAMBIAH, “A performative approach to ritual,” in Culture, Thought and Social Action (1985) 129.5 TAMBIAH (supra n. 4) 129; F. BOWIE, The Anthropology of Religion (2000) 14-16, 22-25.6 BOWIE (supra n. 5) 21.7 V. TURNER, The Forest of Symbols. Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (1967) 294.8 J. MYRES, “The sanctuary-site at Petsofa,” BSA 9 (1902/3) 380.9 B. RUTKOWSKI, The Cult Places of the Aegean (1986) 85-87.10 Minoan Religion 117. See Christine Morris’ paper in this volume for a more considered discussion of thisissue.11 B. RUTKOWSKI “Minoan peak sanctuaries: the topography and architecture,” Aegaeum 2 (1988) 71-99.12 C. RENFREW and E. ZUBROW, The Ancient Mind (1995).13 MYRES (supra n. 8) 380.27 RUTKOWSKI (supra n. 9) 88.28 Minoan Religion 119.29 L. WATROUS, The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro: A Study of Extra-Urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and EarlyIron Age Crete (1996).30 F. VAN STRATEN, “Gifts for the gods” in H.D. VERSNEL (ed.) Faith, Hope, and Worship. Aspects of ReligiousMentality in the Ancient World (1981) 65-151.31 L. WATROUS “The role of the Near East in the rise of the Cretan palaces” in Function Palaces 65-70;WATROUS (supra n. 29) 82-89.32 A. PEATFIELD “Rural ritual in Bronze Age Crete: the peak sanctuary at Atsipadhes,” CAJ 2 (1992) 59-87.33 C. MORRIS and A. PEATFIELD, “Experiencing Ritual” (forthcoming).34 Levi-Strauss quoted in TAMBIAH (supra n. 4) 128.

35 Important here too is the observation that indigenous explanations of religion in relation to anthropologicalinterview are constantly in the process of becoming – see C. TOREN, “Sign into symbol, symbol as sign:cognitive aspects of a social process” in P. BOYER (ed.) Cognitive Aspects of Religious Symbolism (1993) 147-164;and also my review of the same in CAJ 4:1 (1994) 149-155.

THE TRAOSTALOS PEAK SANCTUARY:ASPECTS OF SPATIAL ORGANISATION** The author would like to thank, first of all, the publishers of this volume, and David Hardy for his translationof the Greek text. Thanks also are due to the archaeologist Leonidas Vokotopoulos, who took part in theexcavations at Traostalos, for his valuable help in providing the scholarly documentation for this article, andthe antiquities conservator Alexis Karachalios for supervising the illustrations.1 The complete bibliography of the site is appended in B. RUTKOWSKI, “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: theTopography and Architecture,” Aegaeum 2 (1988) 89-90, and D.W. JONES, Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Cavesin Minoan Crete. A Comparison of Artifacts 101. To these should be added the following: St. ALEJIOU, AD19 (1964) Xr. B’3, 442. K. DABARAS, AD 31 (1976) Xr. B’2, 375. ID. AD 33 (1978) Xr. B’2, 392-393. G.HENRIKSSON and M. BLOMBERG, “Evidence for Minoan Astronomical Observations from the PeakSanctuaries on Petsophas and Traostalos,” OpAth XXI (1996) 99-114. St. XRUSOULAKH, “Ieró Koruf}wTraostálou,” Krhtik} Estía 7, Arxaiologikéw Eid}seiw 1995-1997 (1999) 310-317. ID., “Ieró Koruf}wTraostálou,” AD 50 (1995) Xr. (forthcoming).2 For the importance of visual contact between peak sanctuaries, see A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “The Topographyof Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” BSA 78 (1983) 276.3 A brief presentation of these sites, together with the relevant bibliography, is given in RUTKOWSKI(supra n. 1) 78ff. To this should be added the following: B. RUTKOWSKI, Petsophas: A Cretan Peak Sanctuary(1991), on Petsophas. N. SCHLAGER, “Zum mittelminoischen ‘Höhenheiligtum von Ampelos’,” ÖJh 61(1991/92) 2-15, on Ambelos. For Korakomouri: St. XRUSOULAKH and L. BOKOTOPOULOS, “To arxaiologikótopío enów anaktórou. H éreuna epifaneíaw sthn periox} tou minvikoú anaktórou Zákrou Shteíaw,” Arxaiología49 (1993) 71 no. 76 and 74-75, fig. 7. G. TZEDAKIS, St. XRUSOULAKH, L. BOKOTOPOULOS and A. SFUROERA,“Ereunhtikó Prógramma ‘Minvikoí Drómoi’,” Krhtik} Estía 7, Arxaiologikéw Eid}seiw 1995-1997 (1999)322-324. N. SCHLAGER, “Korakomouri,” ÖJh 64 (1995) 1-24. To these sites should be added a probablepeak sanctuary on the summit of Kastri, near the village of Sitanos, which was identified in 2000 during thesurface survey carried out by the ‘Minoan Roads’ programme.4 ALEJIOU (supra n. 1). 5 D.G. HOGARTH, “Excavations at Zakro, Crete,” BSA 7 (1900-1901) 149. Y. TZEDAKIS, S. CHRYSSOULAKI,S. VOUTSAKI and Y. VENIERI, “Les routes minoennes: rapport préliminaire. Défense de la circulation oucirculation de la défense?,” BCH 113 (1989) 47 and 53.6 XRUSOULAKH and BOKOTOPOULOS (supra n. 3) 71 no. 21 and 74-75 fig. 5. S. CHRYSSOULAKI, “MinoanRoads and Guard Houses: War Regained,” in POLEMOS I, Pl. VIII.a no. 15.7 K. DABARAS, “Arxaióthtew kai mnhmeía Anatolik}w Kr}thw,” AD 27 (1972) Xr. B’2, 653. XRUSOULAKH andBOKOTOPOULOS (supra n. 3) 73.

8 This unusual formation is the product of a series of parallel regular faults or successive changes in seallevel. See N.D. MOURTZAS, “Tektonikéw kin}seiw kata to Tetartogenéw stiw aktéw thw Anatolik}w Kr}thw,”Diss. Ethniko Metsoveio Polytechneio, Ay}na (1990) 217, 220, 225 and 246.9 TZEDAKIS, CHRYSSOULAKI et al. (supra n. 5) 53 and 61. G. TZEDAKIS, St. XRUSOULAKH, M. AUGOULHand G. BENIERH, “Ereunhtikó Prógramma Minvikoí Drómoi’,” Krhtik} Estía 4, Arxaiologikéw Eid}seiw1989-1991 (1992-1993) 306-317. G. TZEDAKIS, St. XRUSOULAKH and L. BOKOTOPOULOS, “ EreunhtikóPrógramma ‘Minvikoí Drómoi,” Krhtik} Estía 5, Arxaiologikéw Eid}seiw 1992-1994 (1994-1996) 359-361.CHRYSSOULAKI (supra n. 6) 78-79 and Pl. VII b.10 K. DABARAS, “Arxaióthtew kai Mnhmeía Anatolik}w Kr}thw,” AD 34 (1979) Xr. B’2, 402-404. G.A.PAPAYANASOPOULOS (ed.), Neoliyików Politismów sthn Elláda (1996) 93 and 208.11 Pelekita: N. PLATVN, “Anaskaf} Zákrou,” PAE 1968, 181-183. J.W. SHAW, Minoan Architecture: Materials andTechniques (AnnScAtene XXXIII, 1971) 30-34. I. PAPAGEVRGAKHS, N.P. PAPADAKHS and N. MOURTZAS,“Arxaía latomeía sth Shteía thw Kr}thw,” Amályeia 25 (1994) 155-156. Papa i Limnes: TZEDAKIS,XRUSOULAKH and BOKOTOPOULOS (supra n. 8) 362.12 TZEDAKIS, CHRYSSOULAKI et al. (supra n. 5) 52-53. G. TZEDAKIS, St. XRUSOULAKH and L. KURIOPOULOU,“O drómow sth Minvik} Kr}th,” Pepragména tou ST’ Dieynoúw Krhtologikoú Sunedríou, Xaniá, 24-30 Augoústou1986 (1990) 406-408 and pín. 81.13 TZEDAKIS, CHRYSSOULAKI et al. (supra n. 5) 51-52 and 55. TZEDAKIS, XRUSOULAKH and KURIOPOULOU(supra n. 12) 409-410. The surface of this road, which is 2.50 m. wide, was paved with rubble. Below theretaining wall, built of large boulders, a second wall was erected as a further reinforcement.14 PEATFIELD (supra n. 2) 275, on the problem of the difficulty of access to peak sanctuaries and their distancefrom residential sites.15 St. ALEJIOU, AD 18 (1963) Xr. B’2, 313. ID. (supra n. 1) 442. DABARAS (supra n. 1) 392-393.16 XRUSOULAKH (supra n. 1).17 These illegal excavations seem to have been of a systematic nature, since three car batteries were found,which had been used to light the thieves’ nocturnal onslaughts. In order to prevent further disturbance ofthe site, a lecture was given at the end of the 1995 season in the coffee house at Pano Zakros, with the dualaim of informing and sensitising the local population.18 A similar rationale governed the method of excavation of the peak sanctuary of Atsipades Korakias, andit is to be hoped that this will facilitate comparison of the data from these two sites. See A. PEATFIELD,“Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The Peak Sanctuary at Atsipades” CAJ 2 (1992) 64-65. C.E. MORRIS andA.A.D. PEATFIELD, “Pottery from the peak sanctuary of Atsipadhes Korakias, Ay. Vasiliou, Rethymnon,”Pepragména tou Z’ Dieynoúw Krhtologikoú Sunedríou, Réyumno (1995) 643-647.19 For ritual bonfires at peak sanctuaries, see N. PLATVN, “To ierón Mazá (Kaloú Xvrioú Pediádow) kai taminviká ierá koruf}w,” Krhtiká Xroniká E’ (1951) 151-152. PEATFIELD (supra n. 2) 277. ID. (supra n. 18)66.20 For pebbles in peak sanctuaries, see PEATFIELD (supra n. 18) 68 and 76. K. NOWICKI, “Some Remarks onthe Pre- and Protopalatial Peak Sanctuaries in Crete,” AEA 1 (1994) 35-39.

21 ALEJIOU (supra n. 1) 442. DABARAS (supra n. 1) 393, where the building is dated to LM I. HENRIKSSONand BLOMBERG (supra n. 1) 110-111.22 For a description of the buildings found in peak sanctuaries, see B. RUTKOWSKI, The Cult Places of theAegean (1986) 76-83. ID. (supra n. 1) 79ff.23 A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: History and Society,” OpAth XVIII (1990) 122 and 124,where the buildings found in peak sanctuaries are treated rather as open structures or enclosures, than asroofed buildings.24 XRUSOULAKH (supra n. 1) 315 fig. 15. A very naturalistically rendered model of a fish was also found in theearlier excavations; see C. DAVARAS, Guide to Cretan Antiquities (1976) 97 fig. 55.25 For the habits and probable symbolic meaning of the function of this species, see RUTKOWSKI (supra n. 22)89-91 and PEATFIELD (supra n. 23) 121.26 In contrast, large numbers of larger figurines were found at Kophinas and Piskokephalo. See A. KARETSOUand G. REYEMIVTAKHS, “Kófinaw. Ieró Koruf}w,” AD 45 (1990) Xr. B’2, 429 (Kophinas). PLATVN (supran. 19) 128 (Piskokephalo).27 C. DAVARAS, “Zur Herkunft des Diskos von Phaistos,” Kadmos 6 (1967) 103-105 and Taf. I, for examplesfrom the early excavations.28 A similar find was yielded by the 1978 excavation, see DABARAS (supra n. 1) 392.29 For the interpretation of these dedications, see PEATFIELD (supra n. 23) 122. JONES (supra n. 1) 13 and 17.E. GEVRGOULAKH, “Votives in the Shape of Human Body Parts: Shaping a Framework,” Plátvn 49 (1997)188-206. For the relationship between peak sanctuaries and healing cults and practices in general, see R.ARNOTT, “Healing Cult in Minoan Crete,” in MELETEMATA I 2-6.30 DAVARAS (supra n. 27) 102. PEATFIELD (supra n. 23) 122 fig 10.31 For ex votos in the form of a phallus from the peak sanctuary at Atsipades, see PEATFIELD (supra n. 18)74-75.32 RUTKOWSKI (supra n. 22) 90.33 The association of dedicators with the sea, which is attested by models of fish and the boat, is obviouslyconnected with the location of Traostalos between two sheltered bays set on a generally inhospitablecoastline that was nevertheless of importance to shipping in the surrounding area. The general topographyof Kophinas is similar – a site that has also produced similar finds: see KARETSOU and REYEMIVTAKHS(supra n. 26) 429.34 XRUSOULAKH (supra n. 1) 315 fig. 16.35 For the metal finds of the early excavations see ALEJIOU (supra n. 1) 442 and DAVARAS (supra n. 27) 102.36 XRUSOULAKH (supra n. 1) 316 fig. 17.38 This was possibly also the function of the incised footprint on a terracotta plaque from Traostalos; see C.DAVARAS, “A Minoan Graffito from Traostalos,” Kadmos 19 (1980) 87-92.39 Final Neolithic or EM I pottery has also been found at the peak sanctuary of Atsipades Korakias; seeMORRIS and PEATFIELD (supra n. 18) 644-645. C. MORRIS and V. BATTEN, “Early Pottery from theAtsipades Peak Sanctuary,” paper presented at the 8th International Cretological Conference (Herakleion9-14th September 1996).40 With regard to the other peak sanctuaries in the vicinity of Traostalos, post-Minoan remains have beennfound at Ambelos, Kalamaki and Modi; see RUTKOWSKI (supra n. 1) 78, 82 and 85 respectively.

41 M. ARAKADAKH, “Diágramma tou diktúou aktofrourQn thw Kr}thw apó thn ékyesh tou Nicola Gualdo dePriorati (1633),” Krhtologiká Grámmata 13 (1997) 67.42 A. BROWN and A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “Stous Anthropolithous: a Minoan Site near Epano Zakro, Sitias,” BSA82 (1987) 23-33.43 Ereunhtikó Prógramma “Minvikoí Drómoi,” To érgo tou Upourgeíou Politismoú ston toméa thw politistik}wklhronomiáw 3 (1999) 179-180. This site may be included in the category of ‘sanctuaries on peaks’; see L.V.WATROUS, “Some Observations on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in POLITEIA 393-394. A seemingly similarsite was found at Lamnoni, in the hinterland to the south-east of Zakros; see K. BRANIGAN, “Prehistoricand Early Historic Settlement in the Ziros Region, Eastern Crete,” BSA 93 (1998) 66-68.44 For the problem of the break in use of most of the peak sanctuaries during the transition between the Oldand New Palace periods, and for the palatial character of the sites that survived, see A. PEATFIELD, “Palaceand Peak: the Political and Religious Relationship between Palaces and Peak Sanctuaries,” in Function Palaces92-93; ID. (supra n. 23) 126-131.