Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
A.Theodorou, Defining Ritual Action, BCH Suppl. 52, MESOHELLADICA
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

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

1,653
views

Published on

MESOHELLADIKA – MΕΣΟΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΑ. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen – Η ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση Εποχή του Χαλκού – The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age …

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

Published in: Education, Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,653
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. BCHSupplément 52MESOHELLADIKAΜΕΣΟΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΑ La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen Η ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση εποχή του Χαλκού The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006Édités 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
  • 2. MESOHELLADIKAME™OE§§A¢IKA
  • 3. É C O L E F R A N Ç A I S E D ’ A T H È N E SDirecteur des publications : Dominique MulliezAdjointe aux publications : Catherine AubertRévision des normes : Béatrice DetournayPhotogravure, impression et reliure : Break’inConception graphique de la couverture : EFA, Guillaume FuchsDépositaire : De Boccard Édition-Diffusion – 11, rue de Médicis, F – 75006 Paris, www.deboccard.comOuvrage 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.grISBN 978-2-86958-210-1Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur pour tous pays, y compris les États-Unis.
  • 4. MESOHELLADIKAME™OE§§A¢IKALa Grèce continentale au Bronze MoyenΗ ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση εποχή του ΧαλκούThe Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze AgeActes du colloque internationalorganisé 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 2006Édités par Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Gilles TOUCHAIS, Sofia VOUTSAKI et James WRIGHTB 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
  • 5. Une partie des congressistes devant le Cotsen Hall (photo Ph. Touchais)
  • 6. PRÉFACEAllocution de bienvenue du Directeur de l’École française d’AthènesLétude du matériel des fouilles de lhabitat mésohelladique de la colline de lAspis étant en coursdachèvement, les responsables du programme, Gilles Touchais et Anna Philippa-Touchais, ontsouhaité orienter la recherche de deux manières : en entreprenant létude globale des vestigesarchitecturaux de lhabitat 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 lHelladique Moyen. Cela impliquait de faire le point sur lune 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.Cest à cet objectif que répond le colloque Mesohelladika. La Grèce continentale au BronzeMoyen, dont lÉcole française dAthènes a eu l initiative. Pour permettre son organisation, elle sestassuré le concours de lÉcole américaine et de lInstitut néerlandais et je remercie très chaleureusementmes collègues Stephen Tracy et Gert Jan Wijngaarden davoir accepté le principe de cette association.En répondant positivement à notre invitation, les très nombreux chercheurs présents, venusdAustralie, dAutriche, des États-Unis, de Finlande, de France, de Grande-Bretagne, de Grèce,dItalie, des Pays-Bas et de Suède ont témoigné de leur intérêt pour la thématique centrale du colloque :procéder à une réévaluation de lHelladique Moyen. - À tous, je souhaite la bienvenue et de fructueuxtravaux.Je remercie tous ceux qui, dans chacune des trois Écoles concernées, ont permis lorganisation de cettemanifestation. Jadresse 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 MULLIEZBCH Suppl. 52
  • 7. Wellcome address of the Director of the American School of Classical Studies at AthensOn 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 TRACYWellcome address of the Director of the Netherlands Institute in AthensDear 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 BCH Suppl. 52
  • 8. INTRODUCTIONL’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 changementsBCH Suppl. 52
  • 9. 4 INTRODUCTIONconstatés 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 pour1. Massimo Cultraro, qui n’avait pu participer au colloque, a envoyé le texte de sa communication, mais les textes suivants n’ont pas été remis : Antikleia Agrafioti, « Les industries lithiques du Bronze Moyen et l’enjeu des éléments de faucille» ; Polyxeni Arachoviti, « ∞ÂÚÈÓfi, ¤Ó·˜ ÔÈÎÈÛÌfi˜ Ù˘ ª¤Û˘ ∂Ô¯‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÷ÏÎÔ‡ ÛÙË ÓÔÙÈÔ·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 in the Southeastern Peloponnese » ; Olga Kyriazi, « ª·ÚÙ˘Ú›Â˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈ΋ §ÔÎÚ›‰· Û¯ÂÙÈο Ì ÙË ÌÂÙ·‚·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 in the 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 ». Pour la publication, nous avons choisi d’intégrer les posters aux unités thématiques auxquels ils se rapportent en les mêlant aux communications, plutôt que de les regrouper dans une section séparée comme cela se fait sou- vent. BCH Suppl. 52
  • 10. INTRODUCTION 5la 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‡, ÀÔ˘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’EF pour le soin qu’elle a apporté à l’édition des actes de ce A,colloque, 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 éditeursBCH Suppl. 52
  • 11. ABRÉVIATIONSPÉRIODIQUES ET SÉRIESLes abréviations utilisées sont celles de l’American Journal of Archaeology (voir AJA 111 [2007], p. 14-34, ou le siteinternet www.ajaonline.org) auxquelles on ajoutera :AEMTh ΔÔ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎfi ŒÚÁÔ ÛÙË ª·Î‰ÔÓ›· Î·È £Ú¿ÎËBCH Chron. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, «Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce »MONOGRAPHIESÄgäische 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 Mittleren Bronzezeit, Mainz (1991).Alt-Ägina IV.3 I. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, Alt-Ägina IV, 3. Das mittelbronzezeitliche Schachtgrab von Ägina, Mainz (1997).Argissa III ˇ ´ 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
  • 12. 8 ABRÉVIATIONSArgos et l’Argolide A. PARIENTE, G. TOUCHAIS (éds), ), ÕÚÁÔ˜ Î·È ∞ÚÁÔÏ›‰·. ΔÔÔÁÚ·Ê›· Î·È ÔÏÂÔ‰ÔÌ›· / Argos et l’Argolide. Topographie et urbanisme. Actes de la Table ronde internationale, Athènes-Argos, 28/4-1/5/1990, Recherches franco-helléniques 3, 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 Middle Helladic Cemetery. The Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Deposits, Stock- holm (1980).Asine III R. HÄGG, G. C. NORDQUIST, B. WELLS (éds), Asine III. Supplementary Studies on the Swedish Excavations 1922-1930, Stockholm (1996).Autochthon A. DAKOURI-HILD, S. SHERRATT (éds), Autochthon, Papers Presented to O. 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 Age and 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 Bronze Age 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 the Chronology and Cultural Development in the Shaft Grave Period, Copenhagen (1991).Emporia R. LAFFINEUR, E. GRECO (éds), EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference / 10e Ren- contre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004, 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 in East-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 in the 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 Table ronde internationale organisée par le CNRS, l’université de Paris I et l’École française 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 Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, BCH Suppl. 52
  • 13. ABRÉVIATIONS 9 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 and the 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 préhistoire phocidienne, Paris (1960).Korakou C. W. BLEGEN, Korakou, a Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth, Boston-New York (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. Wiener As 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 in Athens, 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).BCH Suppl. 52
  • 14. 10 ABRÉVIATIONSPalace of Nestor III C. W. BLEGEN, M. RAWSON, W. TAYLOUR, W. P. DONOVAN, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, III. Acropolis and Lower Town. Tholoi and Grave Circle, 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 décorCéramique 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 avril 1998, Aegaeum 19, Liège (1999).Politeia R. LAFFINEUR, W.-D. NIEMEIER (éds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean 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 Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne 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 to LH 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 Bronze Age 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, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean 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 du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986, Aegaeum 1, Liège (1987). BCH Suppl. 52
  • 15. ABRÉVIATIONS 11Transition R. LAFFINEUR (éd.), TRANSITION. Le monde égéen du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Récent. 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 Age 1939-1989, 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 CHRONOLOGIQUESEnglishEB(A), MB(A), LB(A) Early Bronze (Age), Middle Bronze (Age), Late Bronze (Age)EC, MC, LC Early Cycladic, Middle Cycladic, Late CycladicEH, MH, LH Early Helladic, Middle Helladic, Late HelladicEIA Early Iron AgeEM, MM, LM Early Minoan, Middle Minoan, Late MinoanFrançaisBA, BM, BR Bronze Ancien, Bronze Moyen, Bronze RécentCA, CM, CR Cycladique Ancien, Cycladique Moyen, Cycladique RécentHA, HM, HR Helladique Ancien, Helladique Moyen, Helladique RécentMA, MM, MR Minoen Ancien, Minoen Moyen, Minoen RécentEÏÏËÓÈο¶∂, 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›·BCH Suppl. 52
  • 16. Defining Ritual Action. A Middle Helladic Pit at the Site of ApollonMaleatas in Epidauros*Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDIRÉSUMÉ Pour une définition de l’acte rituel. Une fosse mésohelladique sur le site du sanctuaire d’Apollon Maléatas à Épidaure Un habitat de l’HA se trouvait au sommet de la colline, à l’emplacement où devait s’élever plus tard 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 maisons de plan absidal et au moins trois de plan rectangulaire. L’habitat fut ensuite abandonné et la seule activité que l’on enregistre est l’ouverture, au centre de la zone, d’une fosse contenant du matériel qui 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 le site de leur village déserté. Les vestiges de pratiques cultuelles mycéniennes et géométriques sont situés non loin de là sur le versant Nord, là où fut construit plus tard le sanctuaire archaïque et classique. Il y a en outre un mur de péribole indiquant que le sommet de la colline était une zone à laquelle l’accès était limité. La question n’est pas de savoir s’il exista une activité cultuelle mais quand 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 του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα στην Επίδαυρο Στην ΠΕ περίοδο υπήρχε μια εγκατάσταση στην κορυφή ενός λόφου, στη θέση του μεταγενέστερου ιερού του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα, στην Επίδαυρο. Εκεί βρέθηκαν τρεις ατομικές ταφές της ΠΕ I περιόδου και ανασκάφηκαν τρεις οικοδομικές φάσεις της ΠΕ II: ένα μεγάλο κτήριο, πέντε αψιδωτά οικήματα και τρία τουλάχιστον ορθογώνια. Έκτοτε η εγκατάσταση εγκαταλείφθηκε και η μόνη τεκμηριωμένη δραστηριότητα είναι το άνοιγμα ενός λάκκου στο κέντρο 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 τα κατάλοιπα κοινοτικών τελετουργιών, που λάμβαναν χώρα όταν κατά καιρούς οι κάτοικοι επέστρεφαν στο εγκαταλελειμμένο χωριό τους. Τα κατάλοιπα μυκηναϊκής και γεωμετρικής λατρείας εντοπίζονται σε μικρή απόσταση χαμηλότερα, στη βόρεια κλιτύ του λόφου, όπου οικοδομήθηκε το αρχαϊκό και κλασικό ιερό. Επιπλέον, υπάρχει ένας περίβολος, ο οποίος όριζε το λόφο ως χώρο ελεγχόμενης πρόσβασης. Το ερώτημα δεν είναι αν υπήρχε εδώ τελετουργική δραστηριότητα, αλλά πότε και γιατί ξεκίνησε. Η απάντηση ίσως βρίσκεται στον μεγάλο λάκκο πάνω στο λόφο.BCH Suppl. 52
  • 17. 522 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDIWhen 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 MATTERSThe 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-* I thank the organizing committee for giving me the chance to present this paper; I also thank them all for the stimulating and educating experience of the Mesohelladika conference. This paper is a summary of my MA thesis at the University of Athens under the wise supervision of Prof.  G.  Korres. I would also like to thank Prof. V. Lambrinoudakis for giving me permission to excavate, study and publish the Early and Middle Helladic phases on Kynortion. The lecturer A. Hasiakou helped me very much with the study of MH pottery, and I thank her. Prof. K. D. Vitelli checked the English text and made valuable remarks; of course more valuable was her constant encouragement. My friend E. Sikla spent much of her time discussing ritual and theory with me and read 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 and the 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.), Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: Studies in Honour of William A. McDonald (1985), p. 49-59; C. RENFREW, The Archaeology of 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 Mycenaean Religion”, 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 letting me read part of his book before publication; E. SIKLA, Configurations of the Symbolism of the Bull in Neopalatial Crete: A Case Study in Minoan Religion, unpublished PhD thesis, Bryn Mawr College (2006).3. B. RUTKOWSKI, Cult Places of the Aegean (1986), p. xvi. BCH Suppl. 52
  • 18. A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 523logical 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 more4. 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 and Profane. 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 Anthropological Discipline”, JPR 8 (1994), p. 71-75; E. BLAKE, “The Material Expression of Cult, Ritual, and Feasting”, in E. 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.BCH Suppl. 52
  • 19. 524 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDIprobable, 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.11LEAVING HOME, BUT NOT FORGETTINGThe 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 finds9. 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; “Ἀνασκαφαὶ τοῦ 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 του Απόλλωνος 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 der Stadt Epidauros”, Αρχαιογνωσία 1 (1980), p. 39-63; id., “Remains of the Mycenaean Period in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas”, in R. HÄGG, N. MARINATOS (eds.), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of 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 and Asklepios 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 ιερό του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα: η πρωτοελλαδική περίοδος”, in A.  VLACHOPOULOS, K.  BIRTACHA (eds.), Αργοναύτης. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών 1980-2000 (2003), p. 247-262; ead., “An Early Helladic Settlement in the Apollon Maleatas Site in Epidauros”, in Ägäische Frühzeit II.2, p. 1167-1182. BCH Suppl. 52
  • 20. A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 525compared 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.1913. The pit was partially excavated by Prof. V. Lambrinoudakis in 1977-78. In 1998, the app. 1/3 remaining was excavated by the author. The numbers cited here refer to the finds of the 1998 period. Therefore I avoided percentages 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 yet identified.BCH Suppl. 52
  • 21. 526 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDIThe 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 wall20. Lerna III, p. 243, 326-334, fig. 106 (P1258). BCH Suppl. 52
  • 22. A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 527that was later demolished or by a fence made of perishable material or even a hedge-likebarrier of shrub growth.A SYLLOGISTIC APPROACHThis 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).2221. 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 Greek Sanctuary”, in P. HELLSTRÖM, B. ALROTH (eds.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World (1996), p. 75-81.BCH Suppl. 52
  • 23. 528 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDIThus, 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.24It 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.25Mycenaean 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,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 Query into 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 Mycenaean Greece”, in F. GRAF (ed.), Ansichten griechischer Rituale: Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert (1998), p. 99- 113; E. WEIBERG (supra, n. 6), p. 155-158. BCH Suppl. 52
  • 24. A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 529powerful 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.27We 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).28WE 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.30It 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 was26. 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 Complex and 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 the Past”, ibid., p. 79-104.30. B. BERGQUIST, The Archaic Greek Temenos. A Study of Structure and Function (1967), p. 5.BCH Suppl. 52
  • 25. 530 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDIa 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 fears31. FORSÉN Twilight, p. 232-237. BCH Suppl. 52
  • 26. A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 531is 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? 1 2Fig.  1. – Sanctuary of Apollon Maleatas. Site plan (I. Mavrommatidis).Fig.  2. – N-S section of the pit. Stratigraphy (A. Theodorou).BCH Suppl. 52
  • 27. 532 Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI3 45 6Fig.  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). BCH Suppl. 52
  • 28. A MIDDLE HELLADIC PIT AT THE SITE OF APOLLO MALEATAS IN EPIDAUROS 5337a 7d7b7cFig.  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).BCH Suppl. 52
  • 29. CONCLUSIONThe 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 theBCH Suppl. 52
  • 30. 1038 CONCLUSIONconference 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
  • 31. CONCLUSION 1039The 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 editorsBCH Suppl. 52
  • 32. TABLE DES MATIÈRESPréface, par Dominique MULLIEZ, Directeur de l’EFA, ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Stephen V. TRACY, Directeur de l’ASCSA et ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Gert Jan VAN WIJNGARTEN, Directeur du NIA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3Liste des abréviations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7Conférence inaugurale, par Oliver DICKINSON : The “Third World” of the Aegean? Middle Helladic GreeceRevisited ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13I. ΤOPOGRAPHIE ET HABITATKatie DEMAKOPOULOU and Nicoletta DIVARI-VALAKOU, The Middle Helladic Settlement on the Acropolisof Midea ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31-44Άλκηστη ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ, Οι ανασκαφές στο Νοσοκομείο του Άργους ................................................................................. 45-56Kim SHELTON, Living and Dying in and around Middle Helladic Mycenae ................................................................................................ 57-65Eleni KONSOLAKI-YIANNOPOULOU, The Middle Helladic Establishment at Megali Magoula, Galatas(Troezenia) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 67-76Joost CROUWEL, Middle Helladic Occupation at Geraki, Laconia ....................................................................................................................................... 77-86Eλένη ZΑΒΒΟΎ, Eυρήματα της μεσοελλαδικής και της πρώιμης μυκηναϊκής εποχής από τηΣπάρτη και τη Λακωνία ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 87-99Jack L.  DAVIS and Sharon R. STOCKER, Early Helladic and Middle Helladic Pylos  : The PetropoulosTrenches and Pre-Mycenaean Remains on the Englianos Ridge ...................................................................................................................................... 101-106Jörg 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 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121-128Lena PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, The Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I Periodsat Aigion in Achaia ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 129-141Eva ALRAM-STERN, Aigeira and the Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period in Achaia .......................................... 143-150Michaela ZAVADIL, The Peloponnese in the Middle Bronze Age : An Overview ......................................................................... 151-163Walter GAUSS and Rudolfine SMETANA, Aegina Kolonna in the Middle Bronze Age ..................................................... 165-174Naya SGOURITSA, Lazarides on Aegina: Another Prehistoric Site (poster) .......................................................................................... 175-180Γιάννος Γ. ΛΩΛΟΣ, Σκλάβος: ένα μεσοελλαδικό ορόσημο στη νότια ακτή της Σαλαμίνος(αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 181-185BCH Suppl. 52
  • 33. 1042 TABLE DES MATIÈRESΓιάννα ΒΕΝΙΕΡΗ, Νέα στοιχεία για την κατοίκηση στη νότια πλευρά της Ακρόπολης των Αθηνών κατάτη μεσοελλαδική περίοδο: ευρήματα από την ανασκαφή στο οικόπεδο Μακρυγιάννη ............................ 187-198Όλγα ΚΑΚΑΒΟΓΙΑΝΝΗ και Κερασία ΝΤΟΥΝΗ, Η μεσοελλαδική εποχή στη νοτιοανατολικήΑττική .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 199-210Konstantinos KALOGEROPOULOS, Middle Helladic Human Activity in Eastern Attica:The Case of Brauron .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 211-221Jeannette FORSÉN, Aphidna in Attica Revisited ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 223-234† Μαρία ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΑΚΟΥ, Μεσοελλαδικές θέσεις στη Λαυρεωτική και τη νοτιοανατολική Αττική(αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 235-242Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU, Attica in the Middle Helladic Period ......................................................................................................................................... 243-257Φωτεινή ΣΑΡΑΝΤΗ, Νέοι οικισμοί της Μέσης Εποχής του Χαλκού στην επαρχία Ναυπακτίας(αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 259-267Sylvie MÜLLER CELKA, L’occupation d’Érétrie (Eubée) à l’Helladique Moyen (poster) ........................................... 269-279Λιάνα ΠΑΡΛΑΜΑ, Mαρία ΘΕΟΧΑΡΗ, Σταμάτης ΜΠΟΝΑΤΣΟΣ, Xριστίνα PΩΜΑΝΟΥ και Γιάννης MΑΝΟΣ,Παλαμάρι Σκύρου: η πόλη της Mέσης Xαλκοκρατίας (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) .............................. 281-289Anthi BATZIOU-EFSTATHIOU, Kastraki, a New Bronze Age Settlement in Achaea Phthiotis ............................... 291-300Βασιλική ΑΔΡΥΜΗ-ΣΙΣΜΑΝΗ, Το Διμήνι στη Μέση Εποχή Χαλκού ....................................................................................................... 301-313Λεωνίδας Π. ΧΑΤΖΗΑΓΓΕΛΑΚΗΣ, Νεότερα ανασκαφικά δεδομένα της Μέσης Εποχής Χαλκού στοΝομό Καρδίτσας ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 315-329II. PRATIQUES FUNÉRAIRES ET ANTHROPOLOGIE PHYSIQUEAnna LAGIA and William CAVANAGH, Burials from Kouphovouno, Sparta, Lakonia ...................................................... 333-346Eleni MILKA, Burials upon the Ruins of Abandoned Houses in the Middle Helladic Argolid ......................... 347-355Ελένη ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΥ, Μεσοελλαδικοί τάφοι από τη Μιδέα .................................................................................................................................. 357-365Olivier PELON, Les tombes à fosse de Mycènes : rupture ou continuité ? ................................................................................................. 367-376Vassilis ARAVANTINOS and Kyriaki PSARAKI, The Middle Helladic Cemeteries of Thebes. General Reviewand Remarks in the Light of New Investigations and Finds ................................................................................................................................................... 377-395Laetitia PHIALON, Funerary Practices in Central Greece from the Middle Helladic into the Early MycenaeanPeriod (poster) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 397-402Vassilis P.  PETRAKIS, Diversity in Form and Practice in Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean ElaborateTombs: An Approach to Changing Prestige Expression in Changing Times ........................................................................................ 403-416Maia POMADÈRE, De l’indifférenciation à la discrimination spatiale des sépultures ? Variété des comportementsà l’égard des enfants morts pendant l’HM-HR I ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 417-429Florian RUPPENSTEIN, Gender and Regional Differences in Middle Helladic Burial Customs.............................. 431-439Sevi 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
  • 34. TABLE DES MATIÈRES 1043Abi BOUWMAN, Keri BROWN and John PRAG, Middle Helladic Kinship  : Families, Faces and DNA atMycenae .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 453-459Robert ARNOTT and Antonia MORGAN-FORSTER, Health and Disease in Middle Helladic Greece ....... 461-470Anne INGVARSSON-SUNDSTRÖM, Tooth Counts and Individuals: Health Status in the East Cemetery andBarbouna at Asine as Interpreted from Teeth (poster) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 471-477Fabian KANZ, Karl GROSSSCHMIDT and Jan KIESSLICH, Subsistence and more in Middle Bronze Age AeginaKolonna : An Anthropology of Newborn Children (poster) ................................................................................................................................................. 479-487Leda KOVATSI, Dimitra NIKOU, Sofia KOUIDOU-ANDREOU, Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Carol ZERNER and SofiaVOUTSAKI, Ancient DNA Analysis of Human Remains from Middle Helladic Lerna (poster) ....................... 489-494III. UNIVERS SYMBOLIQUE ET RITUELEvyenia YIANNOULI, Middle Helladic between Minoan and Mycenaean: On the Symbolic Meaning of Offen-sive Instruments ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 497-507Fritz BLAKOLMER, The Iconography of the Shaft Grave Period as Evidence for a Middle Helladic Traditionof Figurative Arts? ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 509-519Anthi THEODOROU-MAVROMMATIDI, Defining Ritual Action. A Middle Helladic Pit at the Site of ApolloMaleatas in Epidauros .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 521-533Helène WHITTAKER, Some Thoughts on Middle Helladic Religious Beliefs and Ritual and their Significancein Relation to Social Structure ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 535-543Alexandra TRANTA-NIKOLI, Elements of Middle Helladic Religious Tradition and their Survival in Myce-naean Religion (poster) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 545-548IV. CÉRAMIQUE ET CHRONOLOGIEMichael B. COSMOPOULOS, The Middle Helladic Stratigraphy of Eleusis .................................................................................................... 551-556Αικατερίνη ΣΤΑΜΟΥΔH, Η μεσοελλαδική κατοίκηση στο Κάστρο Λαμίας. Κεραμεικές ακολουθίεςκαι ιδιαιτερότητες στην κοιλάδα του Σπερχειού ....................................................................................................................................................................... 557-571Fanouria DAKORONIA, Delphi-Kirrha-Pefkakia via Spercheios Valley : Matt-Painted Pottery as Sign of Inter-communication ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 573-581Μαρία-Φωτεινή ΠΑΠΑΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ και Δημήτρης Ν. ΣΑΚΚΑΣ, Μεσοελλαδική κεραμική από τοΑμούρι στην κοιλάδα του Σπερχειού (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ...................................................................................................... 583-590Ελένη ΦΡΟΥΣΣΟΥ, Η μετάβαση από τη Μέση στην Ύστερη Εποχή Χαλκού στο Νέο ΜοναστήριΦθιώτιδας (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 591-601Kalliope SARRI, Minyan and Minyanizing Pottery. Myth and Reality about a Middle HelladicType Fossil ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 603-613John C. OVERBECK, The Middle Helladic Origin of “Shaft-Grave Polychrome” Ware ..................................................... 615-619BCH Suppl. 52
  • 35. 1044 TABLE DES MATIÈRESIro MATHIOUDAKI, “Mainland Polychrome” Pottery : Definition, Chronology, TypologicalCorrelations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 621-633Walter GAUSS, Aegina Kolonna. Pottery Classification and Research Database (poster) .......................................... 635-640Sofia VOUTSAKI, Albert NIJBOER and Carol ZERNER, Radiocarbon Analysis and MiddleHelladic Lerna (poster) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 641-647V. PRODUCTION, TECHNOLOGIE ET ÉCONOMIEΔέσποινα ΣΚΟΡΔΑ, Κίρρα: οι κεραμεικοί κλίβανοι του προϊστορικού οικισμού στη μετάβαση απότη μεσοελλαδική στην υστεροελλαδική εποχή .............................................................................................................................................................................. 651-668Lindsay SPENCER, The Regional Specialisation of Ceramic Production in the EH  IIIthrough MH  II Period ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 669-681Evangelia KIRIATZI, “Minoanising” Pottery Traditions in the Southwest Aegean during the Middle BronzeAge: Understanding the Social Context of Technological and Consumption Practice .......................................................... 683-699Maria KAYAFA, Middle Helladic Metallurgy and Metalworking : Review of the Archaeological and Archaeo-metric Evidence from the Peloponnese ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 701-711Ιωάννης Δ. ΦΑΠΠΑΣ, Από τη Μέση στην Ύστερη Εποχή Χαλκού: μια οικοτεχνική δραστηριότηταστον Βοιωτικό Ορχομενό .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 713-719Armelle GARDEISEN, Approche comparative de contextes du Bronze Moyen égéen à travers les données del’archéozoologie ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 721-732Gerhard 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 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 733-742Alfred GALIK, Stefan ZOHMANN, Gerhard FORSTENPOINTNER, Gerald WEISSENGRUBER and Walter GAUSS,Subsistence and more in Middle Bronze Age Aegina Kolonna  : Exploitation ofMarine Resources (poster) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 743-751VI. ORGANISATION ET ÉVOLUTION SOCIALESJohn BINTLIFF, The Middle Bronze Age through the Surface Survey Record of the Greek Mainland: Demo-graphic and Sociopolitical Insights ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 755-763Sofia VOUTSAKI, The Domestic Economy in Middle Helladic Asine ........................................................................................................................ 765-779Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Settlement Planning and Social Organisation in MiddleHelladic Greece .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 781-801James C. WRIGHT, Towards a Social Archaeology of Middle Helladic Greece ....................................................................................... 803-815Louise A. HITCHCOCK and Anne P.  CHAPIN, Lacuna in Laconia  : Why were there no Middle HelladicPalaces ? (poster) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 817-822 BCH Suppl. 52
  • 36. TABLE DES MATIÈRES 1045VII. RELATIONS EXTÉRIEURES ET INTERACTIONPeggy SOTIRAKOPOULOU, The Cycladic Middle Bronze Age : A “Dark Age” in Aegean Prehistory or a DarkSpot in Archaeological Research ? ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 825-839Donna May CREGO, Ayia Irini IV: A Distribution Center for the Middle Helladic World ?(poster) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 841-845Gerald CADOGAN and Katerina KOPAKA, Coping with the Offshore Giant: Middle Helladic Interactions withMiddle Minoan Crete ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 847-858Luca GIRELLA, MH III and MM III : Ceramic Synchronisms in the Transition to the LateBronze Age .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 859-873Aleydis VAN DE MOORTEL, Interconnections between the Western Mesara and the Aegean in the MiddleBronze Age .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 875-884Tomáš ALUŠÍK, Middle Helladic and Middle Minoan Defensive Architecture: A Comparison(poster) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 885-889Christos BOULOTIS, Koukonisi (Lemnos), un site portuaire florissant du Bronze Moyen et du début du BronzeRécent dans le Nord de l’Égée .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 891-907Vassilis P. PETRAKIS and Panagiotis MOUTZOURIDIS, Grey Ware(s) from the Bronze Age Settlement ofKoukonisi on Lemnos : First Presentation (poster) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 909-917Massimo CULTRARO, In Death not Separated. Evidence of Middle Bronze Age Intramural Burials at Poliochnion Lemnos ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 919-930Peter PAVÚK, Minyan or not? The Second Millennium Grey Ware in Western Anatolia and its Relation toMainland Greece ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 931-943Ιωάννης ΑΣΛΑΝΗΣ, Στοιχεία αρχιτεκτονικής από τη μεσοχαλκή Μακεδονία: τα δεδομένα από τονΆγιο Μάμα Νέας Ολύνθου ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 945-953Χριστίνα ΖΙΩΤΑ, Η δυτική Μακεδονία στην ύστερη τρίτη και στις αρχές της δεύτερηςχιλιετίας π.Χ. Οι ταφικές πρακτικές και οι κοινωνικές τους διαστάσεις ............................................................................. 955-967Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Aspects of Life Histories from the Bronze Age Cemetery at Xeropigado Koiladas,Western Macedonia (poster) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 969-974Aikaterini PAPANTHIMOU, †Angeliki PILALI and Evanthia PAPADOPOULOU, Archontiko Yiannitson: A Set-tlement in Macedonia during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium B.C. (poster) .................................... 975-980Λιάνα ΣΤΕΦΑΝΗ και Νίκος ΜΕΡΟΥΣΗΣ, Αναζητώντας τη Μέση Εποχή του Χαλκού στη Μακεδονία.Παλιές και νέες έρευνες στην Ημαθία (αναρτημένη ανακοίνωση) ............................................................................................. 981-986Ευτυχία 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) .............................................................................................................................................................. 987-993Kyriaki PSARAKI and Stelios ANDREOU, Regional Processes and Interregional Interactions in NorthernGreece during the Early Second Millennium B.C. (poster) ................................................................................................................................................ 995-1003BCH Suppl. 52
  • 37. 1046 TABLE DES MATIÈRESRozalia CHRISTIDOU, Middle Bronze Age Bone Tools from Sovjan, Southeastern Albania(poster) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1005-1012Γαρυφαλιά ΜΕΤΑΛΛΗΝΟΥ, Η Μέση Χαλκοκρατία στα άκρα: η περίπτωσητης Κέρκυρας ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1013-1023Christina MERKOURI, MH  III/LH  I Pottery from Vivara (Gulf of Naples, Italy). A Contribution to theUnderstanding of an Enigmatic Period .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1025-1036Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1037-1039Tables des matières .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1041-1046 BCH Suppl. 52
  • 38. Cet ouvrage a été imprimé et relié en cinq cents exemplairespar Break In s.a. (société commerciale d’édition) à Athènes (Grèce) ISBN 978-2-86958-210-1 Imprimé en Grèce