1 MYCENAEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS The architecture and stratigraphy of Megaron B* Michael B. Cosmopoulos The function of Megaron B at Eleusis is one of the most controversial issues in the history of the site. The excavators of Eleusis, Kourouniotes and Mylonas, had suggested that the Mycenaean building known as Megaron B and its adjacent units B1, B2, B3 (Figure 1.1) were in fact a Mycenaean temple to Demeter and possibly an early Telesterion (Kourouniotes 1935; 1 Mylonas 1961, 38-49). Thus, they proposed that the cult of Demeter originated in the Late Bronze Age. In view of the lack of objects that could be characterized as ritual, Mylonas supported this theory with three arguments: (a) chronology (he dated the introduction of the cult of Demeter to the Mycenaean period on the basis of his interpretation of the events narrated in the Parian marble and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter); (b) continuity of location (the later Telesteria were built right above Megaron B); and (c) architectural elements (use of a peribolos wall to isolate Megaron B from the rest of the settlement, and a raised platform which could have been used as an altar). A religious function for Megaron B was also proposed by Travlos (1970, 60; 1983, 329; cf. Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, 347-348) who, on the basis of an earlier suggestion by Nilsson (1950, 468-470), suggested that Megaron B served not only as an early temple of Demeter but also as the residence of a prominent family of Eleusis, perhaps the Eumolpids. 2 A religious function for Megaron B was generally accepted by scholars until the early 1980s, when it was seriously challenged by P. Darcque. 3 Darcque's arguments are: (a) the lack of continuity in material remains between the Mycenaean period and the second half of the eighth century, when for the first time evidence for cult activity appears; (b) the fact that the events mentioned in the Parian Marble and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter are not likely to refer to events in the Mycenaean period; (c) the observation that Megaron B had primarily a residential function, as indicated by the 1 MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS utilitarian character of its finds; and (d) doubts about the use of the platform as an altar and also about the existence of a peri bolos wall, which in turn cast serious doubt on the architectural isolation of Megaron B and, therefore, its sacred character. The uncertainty about the function of Megaron B stems largely from the summary way in which the finds were published. Mylonas' book on Prehistoric Eleusis (1932a) was written before Megaron B was excavated, so the only published descriptions of the building are interim reports in the ArchDelt and the A]A (Kourouniotes 1930-1931, 18-23; 1931-1932, 2-3; Mylonas and Kourouniotes 1933), as well as the description of the building in Mylonas' classic Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Mylonas 1961, 3lff.). As a proper interpretation of the function of Megaron B can only be based on a detailed analysis of its architectural elements and finds, in this chapter I use the unpublished excavation records and the evidence provided by the recent study of the finds, in order to reconstruct the architectural development and stratigraphic sequence of the building and to shed new light on the issue of its function. This chapter does not discuss the more general issue of continuity of cult from the Late Bronze Age to the Dark Age, but only the function of Megaron Bin the Mycenaean period. The bulk of the Mycenaean remains under the Roman Telesterion (Figures 1.1, 3.1: 7) were brought to light during two long excavation seasons in 1931 and 1932. Further exploration in the same area took place in 1933 and 1934, but produced little evidence that could be of use to the reconstruction of the stratigraphy of Megaron B. The director of the excavation was Konstantinos Kourouniotes, assisted by George Mylonas (except in 1933), Joannis Threpsiades, and Joannis Travlos, who was also the architect of the project. The excavation was difficult, as most Bronze Age strata were covered by later remains; the excavators were confined to digging in deep and narrow trenches and tunnels under the bases of the columns of the later Telesteria, and even had to remove temporarily two column bases of the Peisistrateian Telesterion (Kourouniotes 1930-1931, 18). An added difficulty was that in the 1880s Philios had already excavated parts of the T elesterion down to the bedrock (Philios 1884, 64-65) and then refilled his trenches, in many cases without marking the already excavated areas. Kourouniotes and Mylonas excavated in artificial layers 0.20 to 0.30 m thick, but also recorded in their notebooks changes in natural stratigraphy. The architectural elements of Megaron B and its adjacent structures ' The building known as Megaron B" is a rectangular structure located under the Peisistrateian Telesterion. The earliest remains at that location were parts of walls dating to the late MH period (Figure 1.2; Kourouniotes 5 1930-1931, 18; Mylonas and Kourouniotes 1933, 279). Although their :'.1 Y C E N A E A N R E LI G I 0 N A T E LE U S1S -ＬＭｾ＠ ＭｾＮ＠ . '--- .l ｾＬ＠ ｾＭ ｾ＠ -- --- - - - \ . Ｍｾ＠ ' ｾＭ / I ' ' ｻ I . 1ii Ｍｾ l ＭＢｾ ·. J' •' _j -<f) ｾＱ＠ , :-_::_ . : _ ｾ＠ a I ' I I • . I l(ii ;: ｾ＠ ROOM B2 I • 1 -r--'" 1115 ..i 'IV5 I I , I• .• \ I . • ｌｾＬ＠ I • '4. \':-, I ｾｊ｟ｩ＠ Ｍｾ c- [>ROOM B3 '--'I !"7"'Cl \ \ I n ｌｾ＠ -I\_ \ ｾｓＭ NE ROOM B1 ) ｾＭ -- - ＿Ｇ］ｾＭ --· / I I I I II Curved Geometric Wall Base of Kimonian Column V6 012345m • LHIIA-IIIA2 LJ LHIIIB1-1162 I U 1-'ost-Mycenaean Figure 1.1 Plan of the area of the Peisistrateian Telesterion with the Mycenaean walls (based on an unpublished plan by I. Travlos) state of preservation was very fragmentary, parts of at least one rectangular building was discerned, oriented roughly from east to west: a cross wall running from north to south divided the building into a smaller back room and a larger room that stretched towards the top of the hill. Notable was the fragment of a wall running north-south, underneath the LH wall 6a (Figures 1.1, 1.2; Notebook 1932, 21). Several MH burials were also found associated with these walls. The pottery associated with these walls consists of Grey Minyan, Yellow Minyan, polychrome, and matt-painted sherds, dating to the late MH period.(' Megaron B (Figures 1.1, 1.3) overlies the MH walls. It is defined by two long walls, running roughly in a west-east direction. Wall 6 (Notebook 1931, 45-51; 1932, 10-11, 24) is 0.63-0.68m thick and is preserved to a length of 10.40 and a height of 1.16 m. Its foundation is made of three rows of large stones and forms an indentation at the level of the Boor (Figure 7 1.3). The wall is constructed of stones held together by clay mortar and its east end forms an anta 0.95 m thick (approximately 0.30 m thicker than the MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS r------------------,r---------------------1' ＭｾＮ＠ 1 I I I I I I : I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ｾ＠ I ' I I I I I I I ' I I I II 1 I I I: - ｾ＠ ｾｊ＠ I -.rJ.- GJi) I I I ( L-·--------------------1 0 ll I I 1 I I II I I 0 J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _j 0 o l 5 Figure 1.2 Plan of the Middle Helladic walls under the Peisistrateian Telesterion (based on an unpublished drawing by I. Travlos) wall) and built of stones placed in clay mortar (Figure 1.5, B); LH IIIAl sherds are wedged in between the stones. The south/external face of the anta is rather crudely made, with stones protruding from the line of the wall, and was presumably covered by a thick layer of plaster. The north/internal face of the anta is smoother, made of smaller and more regular stones placed in horizontal rows; presumably it would have been covered also with a thick layer of plaster. In fact, next to the wall was found a small fragment of a fresco with a representation of an eye looking towards the right, bordered by a vertical band. The east end of the anta is carefully made of large flat stones placed in horizontal rows and sitting on a large block of black Eleusinian stone (h. 1m, w. 0.83 m, th. 0.55 m), whose face had been artificially smoothed; the block is conical with an almost rectangular section and one of its corners has been chiseled away, giving it an irregular polygonal shape. It rests on a layer of flat stones. In the narrow (0.20-0.25 m) space between the anta and the base of the adjacent Kimonian column V 6 , there is a flight of three steps (Figure 1.5, A). The two lower steps, measuring 0.72 X 0.20 and 0.72 X 0.25 m, are constructed of large blocks of Eleusinian stone, whereas the third is aligned with the floor of the vestibule (see p. 6), made of a layer of small stones; a flat upright stone and a large fragment of a slab (0.80 X 0.75 m) were found next to wall 6 and, according to Mylonas, could have been part of a stone seat. The floor of the main room was made of a layer of packed earth, pebbles and lime, and sloped gently from west to east; its thickness ranged from 0.04 m in the central part to 0.08 m near the entrance. One part of the floor, measuring 0.60 X 0.85 m, was found near sw 01 South wall of Peisistrateian Telesterion.. • 1 r_ NE ant a l I Floor of Courtyard 8 9 10 Figure 1.3 Schematic section (SW-NE) at the Telesterion (1[ Figure 1.1) B 1b Later wall "] I MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS the base of wall 6, at an elevation of -l.SOm from the surface, overlaying an earlier pebble floor (Notebook 1931, 51). Another part of it, of unrecorded dimensions, was discovered near the western end of wall 6 at an elevation of -1.46 m. The bulk of the pottery found on the later floor dates to LH IIIA1-IIIA2, although LH IIA and liB sherds were also found on and under the level of this floor. At a distance of 2.20 m from the east wall of the room (wall 6a) a base of a column, which would have supported the roof, was found (Kourouniotes 1933, 2). A second column base was restored approximately 2m to the northwest of the first one (Mylonas 1961, 3 5 ). Wall7 (Notebook 1932, 23-25) is preserved to a length of9.70m and is 0.65 m thick. In some places it is made of large stones placed in a double row and the space in-between is filled with small stones and clay. In other places, relatively large flat stones are placed horizontally in the wall, spanning its entire width (Figure 1.4). Smaller stones, sherds, and carbonized remains of wood are wedged in the spaces between and under the stones of each row. This wall also ends in an anta, constructed in a similar manner as the anta of wall 6, although the ending block of the face (h.0.70m, max. w.0.94m, th. 0.50 m) has a round irregular shape. This block rests on an artificial fill, 0.43 m thick. The sherds wedged between the stones of the wall are LH IIIA1. A staircase was originally placed immediately to the south of the anta of wall 7, in symmetry with the flight of steps of wall 6, but it was dismantled when room B 1 (see p. 11) was built; the slabs used for the steps of this staircase were incorporated into the west part of wall B 1a (Figure 1.1). Walls 6 and 7 are connected by a partly preserved cross wall (wall 6a), which divided the building into two rooms, a short vestibule and a main room (Notebook 1932, 12-13, 19-22). This cross wall sat on an earlier MH wall, slightly diagonally oriented, and its upper course connected it also with the later extension to Megaron B (Bl/B2/B3). The vestibule was 2m deep from the cross wall to the east end of the platform and accessed through the two flights of steps. Its floor was 1.25 m higher than the level of the court in front of the anta. The floor was partly made of a large (1. 1 m, w. 0.96 m, th. 0.20 m) rectangular slab of amygdalite stone, whose western end was irregular and covered by a layer of packed earth and small pebbles. The south end of the slab sat on a narrow wall built parallel to the wall of the anta; it formed one side of a drain that ran towards the south and connected with the drain that exited under wall 5 (see p. 8). The opening of the entrance from the vestibule to the main room was 1.30 m wide and would 0 Figure 1.4 Plan of wall 7 (based on G. My Ionas, Notebook 1932, 24) MYCE01AEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS Figure 1.5 View of the steps (A), the anta of wall 6 (B) and the platform (C) from theSE (photo in the General Archive of the Athens Archaeological Society) have been made of at least one step, as the floor of the main room was 0.30 m higher than that of the vestibule. The back (west) wall of the room has not been preserved, but its precise location can be surmised on the basis of the following (Notebook 1932, 26): • • • • The west end of wall 7, made up of small stones, seems to turn towards the south (the change in direction is visible under the foundation of the Roman Telesterion). Part of the floor of the main room is preserved in the west end of wall 7 (Figure 1.1). The floor has an elliptical outline, which can be explained only if we accept that wall 7 turned towards the south. Crossing wall 7, in the place where the west wall of the main room would have been, there are three oblong stones in a row, aligned in a west-east direction (Figure 1.1). These stones appear to have belonged to a wall running in a north-south direction, following a practice that is common in Megaron B: large oblong stones are placed perpendicular to the direction of the wall and span its entire width, whereas smaller stones are parallel to the direction of the wall (cf. the similar construction of wall 7 itself, in Figure 1.4). Further back to the west, the bedrock rises sharply and does not leave enough space for an additional room, unless there were several steps leading up. This is not likely, though, as the entire area was not leveled until Kimon. In front of the vestibule, between the two flights of steps, there is a raised platform (Figures 1.3, 1. SC, 1.6) 1.10 m above the surface of the first step: the thickness of the steps is not recorded, but assuming that each step would have been 0.20-0.30 m thick, the floor of the platform would have been approximately 1.30 to 1.40 m from the courtyard. The platform is MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS a IT-shaped construction made up of three walls: the south wall is 0.65 m thick and 2.50m long, the north wall is 0.60m thick and 2.46m long, and the east wall, vertical to the slope of the hill, is 1.60 m thick and 2.80 m long. These walls are made of medium-size stones, placed rather irregularly in horizontal rows; the area enclosed by these three walls was filled with soil and stones and formed a raised platform, extending to a length of 2m from the external surface of the south anta and 1.30 m beyond the lowest step. The sherds wedged in the walls of the platform are LH IIIAl. In the past, the purpose of this platform has been debated. Mylonas suggested that it could have been used both as a retaining wall for Megaron B and as an altar, but Darcque (1981) maintains that it only served to support Megaron B. A careful analysis of the architectural elements of the platform suggests that it was much more than a simple retaining wall. If retaining Megaron B were the only function that the builders had in mind, there would have been no need for a complex IT-shaped construction; the simplest and most effective way to support Megaron B would have been to build one sturdy retaining wall, spanning the entire width of Megaron B, either on or close to wall 6a. More importantly, the platform is 2.80m wide,H whereas Megaron B is 5.90m wide: in reality, the platform spans only half of the width of Megaron B (Figures 1.3, 1.6). Therefore, as much as the platform may have partially supported the building, it is evident that it also served a non-structural purpose. The elevation of the platform ( 1. 30-1.40 m from the level of the courtyard in front of it) could indicate that it was used for an activity that was meant to be seen from the court below, which would not preclude its use as an altar. This possibility will be further discussed in the Conclusion. Megaron B was enclosed by a wall, of which only two sections survive. The first section, called wall 5 (Notebook 1932, 6-7), lies at a distance of wall 6a wall wall 7 6 Platform drain ' ' Figure 1.6 Plan of the platform and the east end ofMegaron B (based on Mylonas, Notebook 1932, 20) ｍｙｃｅｾａｎ＠ RELIGION AT ELEUSIS 1.15 m to the south of wall 6. It is a long wall running rough! y west east, 0.84 m thick at its east end and 0.60 m thick at its west end, preserved to a length of 19m and a height of 1.50-1.70m. Its east part is founded on the bedrock, but its west part sits on an artificial fill because of the slope of the ground. Its lower course is constructed with large flat stones, averaging 0.50 m in length and 0.23 m in width. The wall is formed by two rows of relatively large stones placed in clay, forming an even fac;ade, with the space in between filled with small stones and clay. The three lower rows (which constitute the foundation of the wall) are 0.17-0.20 m narrower than the socle, forming an indentation at the height of the floor of the courtyard (Figure 1.3). At this point the north side of the wall sits on the rock. At a distance of 5. 35m from its east end, and for a length of 4.30 m, wall 5 almost triples in width to 1.80 m (Figure 1. 7). The thickened part would originally have been rectangular, as one of its original blocks, 0.40 m wide (marked as "v" in Mylonas' notebooks) seems to have been pushed inwards. The external side of the thickened part lies on a thin (0.07 m) deposit, which in turn sits on the bedrock. Its foundation is made of five large Eleusinian stones, the largest of which measures 0. 7 5 X 0. 70 m. These stones, the wider side of which faces cowards the external face of the wall, were meant to provide additional support to the wall. Although the thickened part of wall 5 is taken by Mylonas to be a small "tower," it may also have a practical explanation. At that spot, the bedrock falls sharply: at the west end of this "tower" the bedrock is found at an elevation of -3.10 m and at the east end at -4.05 m, a difference of 1m over a length of 4 m; this drop would have 1J 5 6 Figure 1. 7 Plan of the "tower" of wall 7 and the paved courtyard (based on My Ionas, Notebook 1932, 6) MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS required extra support for the wall. The wall continues beyond the base of the Archaic Telesterion, but towards the west its width diminishes from 0.80-0.85 m to 0.65-0.70m. The sherds found wedged in the east side of the wall, to the south of the thickened part, are LH IIIA1-IIIA2 (Notebook 1931, 13 ). The extension of this wall towards the east, as well as the point where it would have turned towards the north, is unknown. It is possible that the wall turned under the foundation of the Peisistrateian stoa to extend towards the north and then turned towards the west to meet wall 8, thus enclosing the courtyard. The other preserved section of the enclosure wall is wall 8. This wall runs parallel to wall 5 and lies at a distance of 16m to the east. It is 0.80-0.90 m thick, preserved to a length of 14m, and founded on the bedrock. By the north foundation of wall 5 and the south foundation of wall 8 were found slabs and flat stones forming a paved area which formed the floor of the courtyard; the rest of the courtyard was covered with a layer of packed earth (Notebook 1932,4, 17, 38). WallS belongs to the same structure as wall5, because: • • • the two walls have the same direction and their foundations are at the same depth; walls 5 and 8 are, respectively, the south and north end of the paved courtyard as indicated by the end of the paved area; their construction technique is identical (Notebook 1932, 51), including the indentation at the height of the floor of the courtyard (Figure 1.3 ). Accordingly, wall 8 seems to have been the north section of a peribolos enclosing the courtyard and Megaron B. An opening roughly in the middle of wall 8, to which a paved road leads from the northeast, permits the suggestion that a gateway would have led into the courtyard. Two connecting drains were found to the west and south of Megaron B. The first starts at the corner formed by the north edge of the lowest step next to the south anta of wall 6 and the foundation of the south side of the platform (Figure 1.6), and runs towards the south; this drain is uncovered and has one side lined up with small stones. It connects with the second drain, which also runs towards the south and exits under wall 5 at a distance of 1.90 m from its east end (Notebook 1931, 15-16; 1932,2-4, 17-19). The walls of the second drain are carefully made of three layers of stones, reaching a height of 0.43 m at the east and 0. 52 m at the west end (Figure 1.8a). The width of the drain on the external side is 0.46 m in the base and 0.38 m at the top (i.e. the drain is a little narrower towards the top). The opening of the drain is covered with two large slabs (w. 0.30-0.40 m, h. 0.15-0.20 m, l. 0.75-0.80 m) at a distance of 0.15 m from each other, and irregular stones MYCE:-.J"AEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS b Figure 1.8 Section (a) and top view (b) of the drain (based on Mylonas, Notebook 1932, 2-3) between the two slabs (Figure 1.8b). The floor of the drain is formed mainly by the bedrock, and also by a layer of small stones placed on a thin fill. The exit of the drain under wall 5 is well preserved, made up of two parallel rows of small stones that form a smooth far,;ade. An important find was brought to light on July 18, 1931, inside the second drain and at a distance of 2.40 m from the south wall of the Peisistrateian Telesterion (immediately to the north of wall 5 and inside the courtyard): In the upper layer [of the drain], immediately beneath the large slab that covers the opening, we found small fragments of mudbricks. Under this layer, inside the fill, we found carbonized remains mixed with Late Helladic sherds. In the south part, at a depth of 1.15 m there was a layer of pebbles and large stones, under which we found a concentration of ashes mixed with animal bones and fragments from Late Helladic flat round vases ["apT6axnl-la"]. (Notebook 1931, 15-16) The find group has been identified in the Eleusis museum and consists of eighteen burned bones of sheep, goats or pigs, fragments of flat round alabastra, goblet stems and rims, and coarse jar fragments dating to LH III Al (Cosmopoulos, in preparation). Because of the summary way in which the excavation was published, this find did not make its way into the published reports; yet, as we shall see below (p. 17), it has significant impact on the issue of the function of Megaron B. Units Bl/B2/B3 Immediately to the northeast of Megaron B a complex of three rooms was found, oriented roughly from north to south (Figure 1.1). These rooms (B 1, B2, B3) seem to have been an extension of Megaron B (Notebook 1932, 29-38; Mylonas and Kourouniotes 1933, 276-277; Mylonas 1961, 37-38). Room B1 measures 7 X 4.40m and is preserved in its entirety. Its south wall (B 1a in Figure 1.1) is built directly on the north side of the platform 11 MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS Figure 1.9 Section of the anta of the east part ofBla (not Notebook 1932, 30) to scale, based on Mylonas, (Figure 1.3) and is divided into two halves (east and west) by a doorway leading onto the platform. The east half is preserved in its entire length (1.45 m). Its foundation is built of large stones, placed perpendicularly to the direction of the wall, and is 0.78m thick, but the upper rows are narrower (0.65 m). Its face is made of large flat stones, held in place by small stones used as wedges. It ends in an anta made of large regular stones forming a criss-cross pattern (Figure 1.9). The west half is not as well preserved as the east one. It is preserved to a length of 1.46m, a height of 1.30 m, and is 0.60-0.65 m thick. It continues the line of the internal cross wall of Megaron B (6a in Figure 1.1), and it seems that when this connection was made the shared wall was continued beyond the anta and in this way partially blocked the opening of the door of Megaron B. The west wall of B 1 is preserved to a height of 0.60 m. It is founded on an artificial fill, 1.10 m thick. In its north end there seems to be an opening to the west, possibly accessing another room, but the wall at that point is destroyed by the Peisistrateian column and the case remains uncertain. The east wall is preserved to a height of 1.40 m and is 0.60 m wide. It is founded on a MH deposit, 0.50 m thick (remains of MH walls were discerned under its south corner, see Figure 1.2). It was carefully made of stones placed in irregular horizontal rows, wedged in place by small stones. The lower course protruded from the line of the wall and formed an indentation at the level of the floor. The north wall is preserved to a height of 1.25 m and is 0.60-0.65 m thick. It was built on an artificial fill, 0.50 m thick, and constructed with large stones placed in irregular horizontal rows. The west end of this wall was not well preserved, but the base of a staircase leading up from room B 1 into room B2 survived: the staircase was 1.45 m wide and rested on a layer of large stones, some of which were smooth and regular. It was aligned with the entrance of wall 8 (north section of the enclosure wall), which lies at a distance of 1.25 m to the north. The space between the staircase of room B1 and wall 8 was paved with pebbles. In the interior of room B 1, and near its east wall, part of the floor was found. It was made of a layer of packed earth 0.05 m thick and another layer of loosely placed pebbles 0.08 m thick. A threshold in front of its entrance would have facilitated access to the platform. Access to the interior of room 1 ") MYCEr-:AEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS B 1 would have been provided from the platform. Built into the west part of wall B1a there were three slabs that appear to have been the steps of a staircase that would have led from the courtyard up to the platform; this staircase would have flanked the north side of the platform in symmetry with the staircase between wall 5 and the south side of the platform. It appears to have been dismantled when room Bl was built and its slabs were incorporated into the west part of wall B 1a. Rooms B2 and B3 are partially preserved. Room B2 was excavated by Philios, whereas the largest part of B3 lay under the floor of the Peisistrateian prostoon and could only be excavated by means of runnels. Only its width could be established with certainty, which was 5.75 m. It was accessed from room B1 through a doorway, 1.05 m wide. Part of its floor was preserved, made of packed earth and small pebbles. The pottery from the floor dates to the LH IIIB l-IIIB2 periods. Walls to the south of Megaron B and the problem of the peri bolos A number of Mycenaean walls dated to LH IIIB1-IIIB2 were found in the area of the Roman Telesterion, but to the southwest of the Peisistrateian Telesterion (Figure 1.1, walls 1--4). Of these, wall 3 is relevant to the stratigraphy of Megaron B. One of Darcque's major arguments against the religious function of Megaron B concerns the existence of an enclosure wall. On the basis of a discrepancy between two plans published by Kourouniotes and Mylonas in 1933, Darcque suggested that the plan published in AJA had been retouched to make it appear that walls 5 and 8 were contemporary, whereas in the plan published in the ArchDelt wall 5 appears contemporary with wall 3. Thus, in the ArchDelt plan, walls 3 and 5 are grouped together and dubbed "Mycenaean A," whereas in the A}A plan wall 3 has been dubbed "Mycenaean B" and disassociated from wall 5, which is called "Mycenaean A." The difference is crucial, given the fact that the west section of the enclosure wall has not been preserved: if walls 3 and 5 belonged to the same building, there would be no enclosure wall surrounding Megaron B, thus one of the main arguments for a religious function of Megaron B would collapse. According to the excavation notebooks, wall 3 (Notebook 1932, 56-62) is founded on a deposit 0.60m thick (same as wall4b in Figure 1.3). It runs roughly from east to west and is preserved to its entire length, which is 8.75 m. It is constructed of irregular stones placed in mortar, has an average thickness of 0.55m and is preserved to a height of 0.86m. Although it is almost parallel to wall 5, it is narrower (0.50 m as opposed to the 0.60-0.80 m of wall 5) and, more importantly, is constructed in a different manner: not only is it founded on a thick deposit, whereas wall 5 is founded directly on the bedrock, bur it does not have one of the most distinct constructional features of wall 5, the indentation at the height of the floor of p, MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS the courtyard. Furthermore, the pottery associated with wall 3 is LH IIIB1-IIIB2, whereas the sherds wedged into wall 5 are LH IIIAl. Given the differences between walls 3 and 5 and the arguments presented above, wall 5 clearly belongs to the same structure as wall 8 and not with wall 3, rendering Darcque's thesis untenable. The analysis of the architectural elements and the stratigraphy of the Mycenaean remains under the Telesterion allows us to reconstruct in detail the architectural development of these remains and to define their character. The earliest building under the Telesterion dates to the MH period. It is possible that LH I pottery was found in the excavations, but has not been identified. The earliest identifiable pottery dates to LH IIA and comes from deposits on and under the floor of Megaton B and the courtyard, possibly suggesting that the building was first erected in LH II. The walls of Megaton B and of the courtyard were built (or, quite possibly, underwent repairs) in LH IIIA1-IIIA2 (as indicated by the sherds wedged in them). The lack of any indications for destruction or abandonment of the building during LH IIIA-IIIB, and the continuation of the use of the entrance to the main room of Megaton B after the construction of B 1, suggests that the building was in use throughout those periods. As far as we can tell, the extension Bl/B2/B3 was added in LH IIIB1, at which time the walls to the south of the peri bolos were constructed. Megaron B in context How do the architectural features of Megaton B compare to those of other Mycenaean buildings? At Eleusis itself, the most complete examples of Mycenaean domestic architecture come from the south slope (Mylonas 1932a, 29-36; 1932b, 108-109), where two buildings, Houses H and I, were partially preserved. The construction manner of these houses is similar to that of Megaton B: foundations are made of a double row of stones, the space between which is filled with smaller stones and clay; larger blocks are used at the ends of the walls to form antae; the superstructures are made of mudbrick; and the floors are made of packed earth and pebbles, covered with a thin layer of clay and lime. In plan, however, these houses are more complex than Megaton B, as they have an open vestibule, a large central room, and a small back chamber. Although House H opened into a courtyard there were no signs of an enclosure wall and it seems that the courtyard was shared by the house(s) to the east of House H. The size of House I cannot be established, but House H was 11.80 m long - longer than Megaron B. These houses date to LH I and II, therefore they could be contemporary with the earliest phase of Megaton B. Other Mycenaean walls, discovered on the east slope under the Roman Telesterion but outside the Peisistrateian Telesterion (Figure 1.1, walls 1-4) and on the top of the hill (Mylonas 1936, 429), are not preserved sufficiently well to allow the recon- MYCENAEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS struction of additional house plans. The houses excavated by Mylonas and Travlos (1952, 56-57) to the east of the Telesterion date to LH IIIB and do not allow useful comparisons. Consequently, on present evidence, except for the enclosure wall and the platform, Megaron B does not have any unusual features that would set it aside from the LH houses at Eleusis. The same holds true if we compare Megaron B with Mycenaean domestic architecture beyond Eleusis (Mylonas-Shear 1968; Darcque 1980; Hiesel 1990; Whittaker 1997). In general, Mycenaean residential units are freestanding rectangular houses, with one to three rooms arranged along the long axis of the building and the entrance in one of their short sides; posts are used for internal support on the central axis and antae are not uncommon. Sometimes houses will share open courtyards. The plan and size of Megaton B present nothing unusual and find parallels in residential units at Aghios Kosmas (Houses S and T), Eutresis (Houses BB and V), Krisa (House E, second phase), and Korakou (House 0) (Mylonas-Shear 1968, 479-480). The only architectural features of Megaton B that are unparalleled in Mycenaean domestic architecture are the peribolos wall and the raised platform. These two features clearly give a special character to the building complex; but could they be interpreted as religious? The identification of Mycenaean cult places presents many difficulties, which relate both to our own methodological inadequacies and the nature of the material. On the one hand, scholars working on Mycenaean religion have to cope with the lack of a universally accepted methodological framework and of a standard definition of "cult places" and their characteristics. For example, how can a cult site be recognized in the archaeological record? Traditionally, such recognitions are based on certain distinct architectural features (such as hearths, columns, altars, and benches) and the objects associated with them. In most cases these objects are not unusual or exotic, but plain everyday objects, ranging from kylikes and cooking vases to clay figurines, beads, and stone tools. Less often are found rhyta, stone vases, offering tables, spindlewhorls, and exotic items such as scarabs, ivory pieces, sealstones, and seashells (Whittaker 1997, 145, 275-276, table 6; cf. Wright 1994, 62; Shelmerdine 1997, 577-5 7 8). Because of the fragmented and uneven character of the archaeological material (Hagg 1968; Mylonas 1977), the criteria applied for the definition of cult places have been subjective (discussion in Renfrew 1985; Wright 1994). Furthermore, the known Mycenaean cult buildings present a low degree of uniformity and standardization (Rutkowski 1986, 169-199; Albers 1994; Whittaker 1997, 17; Shelmerdine 1997, 570-577) and allow the definition of only three (very) broad types, as distinguished by Whittaker 0997, 25-26): (a) one small room without interior platforms or posts, but opening up to a relatively small courtyard where a platform that could have been used as an altar stood; (b) a large main room and a forehall, the main room having had a platform or hearth; and (c) a complex with several small rooms with platforms. 1 c; MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS The religious rituals performed in Mycenaean cult places are even more elusive than the places themselves. The ritual that is most commonly attested is libations, for which kylikes and drinking vessels seem to have been used (Marinatos 1988; Hagg 1990, 183; Wright 1995, 346; Shelmerdine 1997, 588-5 89). Ceremonial feasting is likely to have occurred in cult places as well, given the fragments of cooking vases found at Phylakopi, Mycenae, Tsoungiza and Methana, and the reference to ritual meals in the Linear B tablets (Palaima 1989; Killen 1994; Godart 1999). On the other hand, the issue of the nature of animal sacrifices is not clear; although evidence for slaughtering of sacrificial animals without burning is widespread (Mylonas 1977; see also the references in Whittaker 1997, 147), burned sacrifices are rare (Bergquist 1988). In fact, only recently have archaeologists and zooarchaeologists been in a position to recognize burned sacrifices in Mycenaean cult places. So far the evidence is restricted to Epidauros-Mt Kynortion (Lambrinoudakis 1981 ), Methana (Hamilakis, forthcoming), Pylos (Isaakidou et al. 2002) and Mycenae (Albarella, personal communication). How does this evidence for early Mycenaean cult fit with the evidence from Eleusis? Religious activity in Megaron B Any attempt to compare the evidence from Megaron B with Mycenaean religious architecture and practices stumbles first and foremost upon chronological difficulties. Almost all securely dated Mycenaean cult places belong to the 9 LH IIIB and IIIC periods, leaving us with only two sites that were contemporary with Megaron B. The first is the LH IIII sanctuary on Mt Kynortion, at the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas in Epidauros. Here an openair sanctuary was found, including a 10.5 m long terrace supporting an altar in the form of a Greek letter IT - interestingly e,10ugh situated right underneath the Archaic and Classical altars. This LH altar contained ashes, burned animal bones, coarse and fine pottery fragments, human and animal figurines, and other objects, and opened up to a paved courtyard immediately to the west (Lambrinoudakis 1977, 193, pl. 120; 1981, 59, 62; Rutter 1993, 794). Another early cult place could be identified in a building at Methana, which was constructed in LH IIIA1 and destroyed in LH IIIB2. This is a complex of four rooms arranged from north to south; room A includes stone platforms, one of which has three steps in the east side, a hearth in the southeast corner, and a number of kylikes, clay figurines, a rhyton, and animal bones (Konsolaki 1991, 1995; Hamilakis, forthcoming). Finally, a large LH IIIA2 (early) deposit containing animal bones, fragments of bowls, kylikes, and other vases, as well as small figurines and a large "Lady of Phylakopi" -type figure, was found at Tsoungiza (Wright 1994, 69-70 with earlier references). As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the arguments for a religious function of Megaron B rely on indirect evidence. So far in our discussion we have confirmed that an enclosure wall did indeed surround Megaron B, lh MYCENAEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS units Bl/B2/B3 and the courtyard, thus providing to the complex an isolation unusual for Mycenaean architecture. How can this feature be reconciled with the lack of indications for cult activities? The detailed analysis of the excavation records offers important clues that can help us to illuminate this point. The first clue is the remains of fire, ashes, animal bones, and squat alabastra, discovered in 1931 in the drain (supra, pp. 10-11). The pottery dates to LH IIB-LH IIIA1, which gives us a general time-frame during the life of Megaron B. The next question is where these remains came from. The drain in which they were found connects with the drain that begins under the platform of Megaron B and slopes southwards towards wall 5; the remains of ashes and bones were found near the base of wall 5, under a layer of sand of the sort that water carries as it flows through the drain. Consequently, these remains appear to have been washed down from the platform into the drain and then carried inside the drain by the flowing waters a few meters to the south. How are these remains to be interpreted? Given the combination of burned animal bones with ashes and fragments of vases like alabastra and goblets, the possibility of a ritual involving burned animal sacrifices (burned bones) and libations (goblets) on the platform of Megaron B is not only reasonable and probable but consistent with the evidence from Epidauros and 10 Methana. The only problem with this interpretation is the small size of the find. Ritual deposits (such as the ones at Mycenae, Tsoungiza, and Pylos) are substantial and often found in a pit or a specially made deposit. On the other hand, at Eleusis the disturbance of the Mycenaean levels by later construction is incomparably much more severe than in any other site with LH ritual deposits. The fact that only a small part of the remnants of a ritual should survive is not surprising. One serious problem with this interpretation is the lack of figurines from Megaron B, given the fact that figurines are considered by many scholars the most conspicuous artifacts related to cult practices (Tzonou 2002). There is, however, evidence to suggest that the archaeological landscape of Megaron B may have not been as barren of cult objects as originally thought: a large number of Mycenaean figurines were indeed found in the vicinity of Megaron B, but were not published because they came from disturbed deposits. Two groups of Mycenaean figurines were found in a disturbed deposit to the southwest of Megaron B and, interestingly enough, close to the exit of the drain under wall 5. The first group consists of five figurines, two broken and three intact, from an elevation of -0.30 m and the second of an undisclosed number of figurines from an elevation of- 0.60 m (Notebook 1931, 24, 31). A third group of "numerous figurines" ("pleista eidolia") was found in a mixed layer inside the courtyard to the south of Megaron B (Notebook 1931, 39). Although we do not have details about these figurines (until now it has been possible to identify only a few at the Eleusis museum (Cosmopoulos in preparation)), their mere presence is important, as they form an integral part MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS of the systems of activities that were taking place in Megaron B and the courtyard in the LH II and IliA periods. This thesis is based on anthropological theory, which suggests that each human activity (in our case a ritual) is not isolated but part of a system of activities (see, e.g., Rapoport 1990; Tzonou 2002), which includes also the various depositional stages of the objects involved with the activity. Within this framework, not only primary but also secondary and tertiary deposits are valuable in the interpretation of the archaeological record (Schiffer 1987), as long as they can be related to the original context; objects recovered from disturbed deposits should not be ignored, but studied as parts of the post-activity processes. In our case, although a direct connection to the original context cannot be made, the spatial proximity of the discarded figurines to Megaron B is unquestionable and suggests that these figurines originated in the only building that dominates that spot and the only building from which some kind of activity is attested (i.e. Megaron B). Indeed, the possibility that these figurines were votive offerings discarded from Megaron B or from the courtyard supports the religious function of Megaron B, especially since two of the three figurine findgroups were found near the exit of the drain, after perhaps having been thrown in the drain. If the platform can be explained as a locus for religious ritual(s), one has to wonder about the function of the courtyard and the peribolos wall. The floor of the platform is approximately 1.30-1.60m above the level of the courtyard, the floor of which gently slopes towards the east. As the platform faces east, as well, it is reasonable to assume that the sacrifices were meant to be visible by those standing or sitting in the courtyard. The peribolos wall, then, could be explained in terms of the need for privacy of the occupants of Megaron B and the events that took place on the platform and in the courtyard. This arrangement parallels closely that of the LH 1/II sanctuary at Mt Kynortion, where the platform is IT-shaped and viewable from a paved courtyard and leads to the conclusion that the complex of Eleusis served a similar function. At the same time, the domestic and everyday objects found at Megaron B would also indicate its use as a residence, in which case the building would have served a double, residential and cultic, purpose. Conclusion The detailed study of the unpublished excavation records has shown that: (a) doubts about the existence of an enclosure wall around Megaron B should be dismissed: a peribolos did indeed surround the building and 1ts extenswn; (b) the raised platform in front of Megaron B was not a simple retaining work, but served a non-structural function; • • 1 Q MYCENAEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS (c) remnants of what appears to have been one or more sacrificial pyre(s) could have originated on this platform, suggesting that the platform was used as an altar, which is consistent with the other known early Mycenaean sanctuary at Epidauros; (d) a large number of LH figurines found in the immediate periphery of Megaron B could indicate ritual activity. The picture that emerges from the above is that a ritual involving libations, animal sacrifices, and offering of votive (?) figurines could indeed have occurred on the platform of Megaron B. The ritual could have been attended by people in the courtyard and its privacy could have been afforded by the peribolos. This ritual could have started during or after the LH liB period (on the basis of the sherds found in the drain) and could have continued at least as late as the LH IIIB (when the extension Bl!B2/B3 is dated). In general, it is accepted that Mycenaean religious architecture grew out of local domestic architecture and found its inspiration largely in residential buildings, possibly developed from shrines in the houses of prominent leaders (Rutkowski 1986; Whittaker 1997, 136). Therefore, we may consider the possibility that in Megaron B we have a building used both as a residence and as a family shrine. Its architectural development can be reconstructed as follows: a simple rectangular building in late MH/early LH, Megaron B with its platform and peri bolos was built in LH II/IIIA1, and the extension Bl!B2/B3 in LH IIIBl. These changes indicate a progressively increasing complexity and may suggest an initially unstructured and infor11 mal cult, which with the passage of time became more formalized. Such a development fits well with our knowledge about the evolution of Mycenaean religion. Wright (1994) discerns an early (LH I/II) stage in the development of Mycenaean religion, when cult is unstructured and focuses on non-formalized rituals with underdeveloped and non-standardized symbolism. Furthermore, he suggests that "the formalization of ritual practice and its codification and monumentalization are directly related to the scale of sociopolitical complexity" (Wright 1994, 7 4), which explains the increasing trend for formalization, monumentalization, and institutionalization of Mycenaean religion in the palatial period. The progressive expansion of the architectural space of Megaron B and the increasing complexity of its premises could very well have been an expression of the same trend. The fact that Megaron B was also used as a residence brings us back to Travlos' suggestion that it was the house of an important family; the new evidence presented here suggests that the residential function of Megaron B was complemented by another function, involving rituals with animal sacrifices and libations. All this does not beg the question of continuity of cult to the Dark Age. The religious character of Megaron B should, in fact, be disassociated from the more general problem of religious continuity at Eleusis. On present MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS evidence, cult activity in Megaron B should be considered certain; whether or not this was the precursor of the later cult remains an open question. Notes *This paper stems from the Eleusis Archaeological Project, which I have undertaken on behalf of the Athens Archaeological Society (Cosmopoulos 1993, 1998; Cosmopoulos et al. 1999). The purpose of the project is the study and publication of the Bronze Age finds from the old excavations at Eleusis, as well as those from a new stratigraphic excavation in the northwest slope of the Eleusinian hill (Cosmopoulos 1994a, 1994b, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, 1996a, 1996b). I would like to thank the Board of the Athens Archaeological Society and the Third Ephoreia of Antiquities for permission to study the material. Funding for the project has been provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the University of Manitoba, the Shelby White-Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, and the Hellenic Government-Karakas Foundation Chair in Greek Studies at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The notebooks and plans from the old excavations at Eleusis are now in the General Archive and the Travlos Archive of the Athens Archaeological Society. I would like to thank the archaeologists Joanna Ninou and Elena Papanikolaou for their help in locating and accessing these records. The drawings from the Notebooks have been inked, scanned, and retouched electronically. I am grateful to Professor James Wright and Cynthia Shelmerdine for reading drafts of this chapter and offering valuable advice. Needless to say, I remain solely responsible for all errors or omissions. Special thanks are due to Ms. Popi Papaggeli for facilitating greatly my work at the Eleusis museum. Abbreviations used in this chapter: EH (Early Helladic), MH (Middle Helladic), LH (Late Helladic). 1 It is unknown whether the original suggestion was made by Kourouniotes or Mylonas. It is expressed for the first time in Kourouniotes' 1931 excavation notebook, but Mylonas was in charge of the Bronze Age excavation that year, so it is possible that the original idea was his. 2 Desborough 0964, 43, 114-115), Hagg 0968, 46-47), Vermeule (1972, 287; 1974, 142-143), Dietrich (1974, 224-225), Rutkowski 0986, 189-191). Although Clinton (1993, 114) and Kokkou-Vyridi 0999, 24) express reservations, they still consider Megaron B a religious building. 3 Darcque's arguments were expressed first in his dissertation (Darcque 1980) and then elaborated in his 1981 BCH article. Darcque is followed by Hope-Simpson (1981, 46), Rolley 0983, 113), Whittaker 0997, 14-15), Mazarakis-Ainian 0997, 149) and Binder 0998). 4 The term megaron is used here for convenience, as this is how the building has become known. For the ambiguity of the term see Darcque (1980, 70; 1990) and Werner (1993, 3-5). 5 Sporadic Early Helladic sherds have been found in various locations under the Telesterion, always in disturbed deposits and never associated with architecture (Notebook 1931, 16). A stratified EH II deposit was found in 1995 in the stratigraphic excavation conducted by the present writer in the southwest slope of the hill, immediately to the north of the area excavated by Mylonas in the 1930s (Cosmopoulos 1996a). 6 As is pointed out below, characteristic LH I sherds have not been recognized in the material from the Telesterion, but this does not mean that some Grey and/or Yellow Minyan and some late matt-painted sherds could not date to LH I. 7 Unless otherwise indicated, all elevation measurements are taken from the level of the base of column IV 6 of the Kimonian Telesterion. MYCENAEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS 8 The measurement is the one recorded in the notebooks (Notebook 1932, 20). 9 See Shelmerdine (1997, 570-577) for a useful summary with references. 10 As the bones were burned, it does not seem likely that they were the remains of a feast. On the other hand, they could not have been burned refuse either, because in that case the sherds found mixed with them would have been burned as well, which is not the case. 11 Hagg (1981, 36) considers Megaron Ban expression of "official" cult, because of its formal architectural features, especially the peribolos wall. As tempting as this suggestion is, given the paucity of the evidence from Eleusis, I hesitate to take a position on this matter. For the general question of "popular" vs. "official" Mycenaean cult, see Hagg (1981, 1995), Kilian (1992), Shelmerdine (1997, 577). References Albers, G., 1994: Spiitmykenische Stadtheiligtiimer. Systematische Analyse und vergleichende Auswertung der archciologische Befunde. BAR International Series 596, London. Bergquist, B., 1988: "The archaeology of sacrifice: Minoan-Mycenaean versus Greek," in R. Hagg, N. Marinatos, and G.C. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice (Swedish Institute at Athens, Stockholm), 21-34. Binder, J., 1998: "The early history of the Demeter and Kore sanctuary at Eleusis," in R. Hagg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 October 1993 (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Instituter i Athen, Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, XV, Stockholm), 131-139. Clinton, K., 1993: "The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis," in Marinatos and Hagg (eds) 1993, 110-124. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1993: "Eleusis in the Bronze Age: The Early and Middle Helladic Pottery." 94th Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, 27-30 December 1992. Abstract published in A]A 97 (1993), 344-345. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1994a: "Anaskafe Eleusinas 1994," Prakt 1994,45-60. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1994b: "Eleusina," Ergon 1994, 25-26. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1995a: "The University of Manitoba excavation at Eleusis, 1994 season," EchC/14 (1995), 75-94. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1995b: "Anaskafe Eleusinas 1995," Prakt 1995, 33-49. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1995c: "Eleusina," Ergon 1995, 24. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1995d: "The University of Manitoba Excavations at Eleusis," Archaeological Institute of America, 96th Annual Meeting, Atlanta, 27-30 December 1994. Abstract published inAJA 99 (1995), 341. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1996a: "Recherches sur la stratigraphie prehistorique d'Eleusis," EchC! 15 (1996), 1-26. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1996b: "New excavations in the ancient sanctuary of Eleusis," Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of the Canadian West, Winnipeg, 16 March 1996. Cosmopoulos, M.B., 1998: "Eleusi nell'eta del Bronzo Medio," in R.de Marinis, A.-M. Bietti-Sestieri, R. Peroni, and Carlo Peretto (eds): Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forti, Italy, 8-14 September 1996. Vol. 4 (Forli), 195-200. Cosmopoulos, M.B., in preparation: The Bronze Age Pottery from Eleusis. Library of the Athens Archaeological Society, Athens. MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS Cosmopoulos, M.B., V. Kilikoglou, I. Whitbread, and E. Kiriazi, 1999: "Physicochemical analyses of Bronze Age pottery from Eleusis," in P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, W.D. Niemeier, and R. Laffineur (eds), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener. (Aegaeum 20, Annales d'archeologie egeenne de l'U niversite de Liege et UT-Pasp, Liege), 131-13 7. Darcque, P., 1980: "L'Architecture Domestique Mycenienne." These de IIIe Cycle, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris. Darcque, P., 1981: "Les vestiges Myceniens decouverrs sous le Telesterion d'Eleusis." BCH CV, 593-605. Darcque, P., 1990: "Pour !'abandon du term 'megaron'," in P. Darcque and R. Treuil (eds), L'habitat egeen prehistorique. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisee par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Athenes, 23-25 juin 1987, BCH Supplement XIX), 21-31. Desborough, V.R. d'A., 1964: The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Dietrich, B.C., 1974: The Origins of Greek Religion. De Gruyter, Berlin and New York. Godart, L., 1999: "Les sacrifices d'animaux dans les textes myceniens," inS. DegerJalkotzy, S. Hiller, 0. Panagl, and G. Nightingale (eds), Floreant Studia Mycenea: Akten des 10 mykenologischen Kolloquiums 1995 (Salzburg, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften), 249-254. Hagg, R., 1968: "Mykenische Kultstatten im archaologischen Material," OpAth 8, 39-60. Hagg, R., 1981: "Official and popular cults in Mycenaean Greece," in Hagg and Marinatos (eds) 1981, 35-39. Hagg, R., 1990: "The role of libations in Mycenaean ceremony and cult," in R. Hagg and G. Nordquist (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 june 1988 (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Instituter i Athen, Stockholm), 177-184. Hagg, R., 1995: "State and religion in Mycenaean Greece," in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Heidelberg, 10-13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12, Liege 1995), 387-391. Hagg, R. and N. Marinatos (eds), 1981: Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 12-13 May 1980 (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Instituter i Athen, Stockholm). Hagg, R. and N. Marinatos (eds), 1994: Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Hamilakis, Y., forthcoming: "Animal sacrifice and Mycenaean societies: preliminary thoughts on the zooarchaeological evidence from the sanctuary at Ag. Konstanrinos, Methana," in E. Konsolaki (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the History and Archaeology of the Argo-Saronic Gulf, Poros. Hiesel, G., 1990: Spcithelladische Hausarchitektur. Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des griechischen Festlands in der spciten Bronzezeit. Mainz. Hope-Simpson, R., 1981: Mycenaean Greece. Noyes Press, Noyes, N.J. Isaakidou, V., P. Halstead,]. Davis, and S. Stocker, 2002: "Burnt animal sacrifice in Late Bronze Age Greece: new evidence from the Mycenaean 'Palace of Nestor' at Pylas," Antiquity 76, 86-92. Kilian, K., 1992: "Mykenische Heiligtiimer der Peloponnes," in H. Froning, T. / / / MYCENAEAN RELIGION AT ELEUSIS Holscher, and H. Mielsch (eds), Kotinos: Festschrift fiir Erika Simon (P. von Zabern, · Mainz am Rhein), 10-25. Killen, J.T., 1994: "Thebes sealings, Knossos tablets, and Mycenaean state banquets," BICS 39, 67-84. Kokkou-Vyridi, K., 1999: Proimes pyres thysion sto Telesterio tes Eleusinos. Library of the Athens Archaeological Society 185, Athens. Konsolaki, E., 1991: "Methana-Ayios Konstantinos," ArchDelt46, 71-74. Konsolaki, E., 1995: "The Mycenaean Sanctuary at Methana," BICS 40,242. Kourouniotes, K., 1930-1931: "Hai teleutaiai anaskafai tes Eleusinos. Anaskafe en to Telesterio," ArchDelt 13 (1930-1931), Parartema, 17-30. Kourouniotes, K., 1931-1932: "Anaskafe Eleusinos kata to 1933," ArchDelt 14 (1931-1932), Parartema, 1-30. Kourouniotes, K., 1933-1935: "Anaskafe Eleusinos 1934," ArchDelt 15 (1933-1935), Parartema, 1-48. Kourouniotes, K., 1935: "Das eleusinische Heiligtum von den AnHingen bis zur vorperileischen Zeit," Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft 32, 52-78. Lambrinoudakis, V., 1977: "Anaskafe sto Iero rou Apollonos Maleata," Prakt, 187-194. Lambrinoudakis, V., 1981: "Remains of the Mycenaean period in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas," in Hagg and Marinatos (eds), 1981, 59-65. Marinatos, N., 1988: "The imagery of sacrifice: Minoan and Greek," in R. Hagg, N. Marinatos, and G.C. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice (Swedish Institute at Athens, Stockholm), 9-19. Marinatos, N. and R. Hagg (eds), 1993: Greek Sanctuaries. New Approaches. Routledge, London and New York. Mazarakis-Ainian, A., 1997: From Rulers' Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion, and Society in Early Iron Age Greece ( 1100-700 BC). SIMA CXXI, Jonsered. Mylonas, G.E., 1932a: Proistorike Eleusis. Athens. Mylonas, G.E., 1932b: "Eleusis in the Bronze Age," A]A 36, 104-117. Mylonas, G.E., 1936: "Eleusiniaka," A]A 40,415-431. Mylonas, G.E., 1961: Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Mylonas, G.E., 1977: Mycenaean Religion. Temples, Altars, and Temenea. Publications of the Academy of Athens 39. Athens. Mylonas, G.E. and K. Kourouniotes, 1933: "Excavations at Eleusis, 1932," A}A 37, 271-286. Mylonas, G.E. and I. Travlos, 1952: "Anaskafai en Eleusini," Prakt 1952, 53-72. Mylonas-Shear, 1., 1968: "Mycenaean Domestic Architecture." Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College. Nilsson, M.P., 1950: The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion. Second edition, Lund. Palaima, T.G., 1989: "Perspectives on the Pylos oxen tablets: textual and archaeological evidence for the use and management of oxen in Late Bronze Age Messenia (and Crete)," Studia Mycenaea 1988 (Ziva Antica Monograph 7, Skopje), 85-124. Philios, D., 1884: "Ekthesis peri ton en Eleusini anaskafon," Prakt, 64-87. Rapoport, A., 1990: "Systems of activities and systems of settings," inS. Kent (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. An Interdisciplinary Cross-cultural Study (Cambridge University Press, London), 9-20. -- MICHAEL B. COSMOPOULOS Renfrew, C., 1985: The Archaeology of Cult: the Sanctuary at Phylakopi, BSA Suppl. 18, London. Rolley, C., 1983: "Les grand sanctuaires panhelleniques," in R. Higg (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century BC. Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1-5 June, 1981 (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, XXX, Stockholm 1983), 109-114. Rutkowski, B., 1986: The Cult Places of the Aegean. Yale University Press, New Haven. Rutter, J.B., 1993: "Review of Aegean prehistory II: The prepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek mainland," A}A 97,745-797. Schiffer, M.B., 1987: Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Shelmerdine, C., 1997: "Review of Aegean prehistory VI: The palatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek mainland," A]A 101, 53 7-585. Travlos, I., 1970: "Die Anfange des Heiligtums von Eleusis," in E. Melas, Tempel und Stiitten der Go'tter Griechenlands (Koln), 55-73. Travlos, I., 1983: "E Athena kai e Eleusina stan So kai 7o aiona," Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene LXI, 323-338. Tzonou, I., 2002: "A contextual analysis of mycenaean terracotta figurines." Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati. Vermeule, E.T., 1972: Greece in the Bronze Age. Harvard University Press, Harvard. Vermeule, E.T., 1974: "Gotterkult," Archaeologia Homerica, vols. Ill-V. Werner, K., 1993: The Megaron during the Aegean and Anatolian Bronze Age. SIMA CVIII, Jonsered. Whittaker, H., 1997: Mycenaean Cult Buildings. A Study of their Architecture and Function in the Context of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. Monographs from the Norwegian Institute at Athens, vol. 1. Bergen. Wright, J.C., 1994: "The spatial configuration of belief: The archaeology of Mycenaean religion," in Hagg and Marinatos (eds), 1994, 37-78. Wright, J.C., 1995: "The archaeological correlates of religion: Case studies in the Aegean," in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Heidelberg, 10-13 April1994 (Aegaeum 12, Liege 1995), 341-348. 24