Stable Places and Changing Perceptions: Cave Archaeology in Greece 9781407311791, 9781407341491

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
List Of Contributors
List Of Tables In The Text
List Of Figures
Abbreviations
Opening Remarks
Preface
Introduction. Stable Spaces – Changing Perception: Cave Archaeology In Greece
PART I: Science: Chronology, Palaeontology, Geology, Environment
PART II: Caves In Prehistory
PART III: Cretan Caves
PART IV: Caves In Historical Times
PART V: Case Studies In Cave Archaeology

Citation preview

BAR S2558 2013

Stable Places and Changing Perceptions: Cave Archaeology in Greece

MAVRIDIS & JENSEN (Eds)

Edited by

Fanis Mavridis Jesper Tae Jensen

STABLE PLACES AND CHANGING PERCEPTIONS

B A R Mavridis and Jensen 2558 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 2558 2013

17/09/2013 16:18:42

Stable Places and Changing Perceptions: Cave Archaeology in Greece Edited by

Fanis Mavridis Jesper Tae Jensen

BAR International Series 2558 2013

ISBN 9781407311791 paperback ISBN 9781407341491 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311791 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

                                                                                                                                 

F.M.: Dedicated to Maria and Thanasis   J.T.J: Dedicated to Lilian Svenningsen and Steffen Ledet Christiansen

Table of Contents List Of Contributors ............................................................................................................................................iv List Of Tables In The Text ................................................................................................................................. vii List Of Figures.....................................................................................................................................................ix Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................................... xvi Opening Remarks ............................................................................................................................................xviii Preface................................................................................................................................................................ xx Fanis Mavridis and Jesper Tae Jensen Introduction Stable Spaces – Changing Perception: Cave Archaeology In Greece ................................................................ 1 Fanis Mavridis, Jesper Tae Jensen and Lina Kormazopoulou PART I: SCIENCE: CHRONOLOGY, PALAEONTOLOGY, GEOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT ................. 18 1. Radiocarbon Dates From Archaeological Sites InCaves and Rockshelters In Greece ................................. 19 Yorgos Facorellis 2. Cave Sediment Studies In Greece: A Contextual Approach To The Archaeological Record ........................ 73 Panagiotis Karkanas 3. Caves And Fossils: Palaeontology In Greek Caves And Fissures ................................................................ 83 Alexandra A.E. van der Geer and Michalis D. Dermitzakis 4. Sea-level Changes From The Middle Palaeolithic To The Early Neolithic and Their Implications On The Colonization Of The Ionian Islands ............................................................................... 99 Maria Gkioni, Maria Geraga, Yorgos Papatheodorou, and Yorgos Ferentinos PART II: CAVES IN PREHISTORY .......................................................................................................... 111 5. The Use Of Palaeolithic Caves And Rockshelters In Greece: A Synopsis .................................................. 112 Antigone Papadea 6. The Early Holocene Occupation Of Caves In The Balkans......................................................................... 130 Frank Falkenstein 7. Perspectives Of Symbolism And Ritualism For The Late Neolithic Communities At Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia ............................................................................................................................ 142 Stella Katsarou and Adamantios Sampson PART III: CRETAN CAVES ....................................................................................................................... 153 8. The Uses Of Caves In Minoan Crete: A Diachronic Analysis..................................................................... 155 Lefteris Platon 9. Caves In The Ritual Landscape Of Minoan Crete ....................................................................................... 166 Elissa Faro 10 .Defining Bronze Age Ritual Caves In Crete .............................................................................................. 176 Loeta Tyree ii

11. Cretan Caves Sanctuaries OF The Early Iron Age To The Roman Period ............................................... 188 Nikolaos Stampolidis and Antonis Kotsonas PART IV: CAVES IN HISTORICAL TIMES ............................................................................................ 201 12. Mapping Greek Sacred Caves: Sources, Features, Cults.......................................................................... 202 Katja Sporn 13. Emperors Between Skylla And Polyphemos: The Use And Abuse Of Roman Grottoes ............................ 217 Mette Catherina Hermannsen 14. “Through The Double Gates Of Sleep” (Verg. Aen. 6.236.): Cave-Oracles In Graeco-Roman Antiquity .......................................................................................................................................................... 228 Wiebke Friese 15. Non-Ritual Use Of Caves In The Classical And Late Roman Periods: The Case Of Attika ..................... 239 Jere Wickens PART V: CASE STUDIES IN CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY ........................................................................... 247 16. Anonymous Cave Of Schisto At Keratsini, Attika: A Preliminary Report On A Diachronic Cave Occupation From The Pleistocene/Holocene Transition To The Byzantine Times ......................................... 248 Fanis Mavridis, Lina Kormazopoulou, Antigone Papadea, Orestis Apostolikas,Daishuke Yamaguchi, Zarko Tankosic, Georgia Kotzamani, Katerina Trantalidou, Panagiotis Karkanas, Yannis Maniatis, Katerina Papagianni,and Dimitris Lambropoulos. 17. Das Gebirge als Lebensraum Zur kultischen Bedeutung und profanen Nutzung der Höhlen und.................. Überhänge des Latmos im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ............................................................................... 285 Anneliese Peschlow-Bindokat 18. Schisto Cave At Keratsini (Attika): The Pottery From Classical Through Roman Times......................... 306 Alexandra Zampiti 19. Prehistoric Use And Ancient Ritual Worship At the Cave Of Hagia Triada On Helikon ......................... 319 Vivi Vasilopoulou 20. Epilogue Digging Up Caves: A Unique Experience ....................................................................................................... 329 Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika

iii

List Of Contributors Apostolikas, O. Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Sports, Ardettou 34b, 116 36 Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Dermitzakis, M.D. Deptartment of Historical Geology and Palaeontology, University of Athens, University Campus, 15701 Ilissia, Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Facorellis, Y. Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Department of Antiquities and Works of Art Conservation, Τechnical Educational Institute of Athens, Agiou Spyridonos, 12210 Egaleo, Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Falkenstein,F. Lehrstuhl fuer Vor- und Fruehgeschichtliche Archaeologie, Institut fuer Altertumswissenschaften, Julius-Maximilians-Universitaet Wuerzburg Residenzplatz 2, Tor A D-97070 Wuerzburg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] Faro, E.Z. Department of Classics, Dartmouth College, 6086 Reed Hall/Room 316, Hanover, NH 03755, U.S.A. Email: [email protected] Ferentinos, G. Department of Geology, University of Patras, 26500 Patras, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Friese, W. Institut für Archeologie und Kulturgeschichte des antiken Mittelmerraumes, Univestität Hamburg, Edmund Siemens Allee 1, Westflügel 20146 Hamburg, Germany. E-mail:[email protected] Geer van der, A. Departmentof Geology, Netherlands Institute for Biodiversity Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300RA Leiden, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] Geraga, M. Department of Geology, University of Patras, 26500 Patras, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Gkioni, M. Agias Barbaras 102, 17235 Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Hermannsen, M.C. Peter Bangs Vej 133 2.th, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] Jensen Tae, J. Executive Director, The Danish Institute for Mediterranean Studies (Diomedes), Tom Kristensens Vej 16, 2. 201, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] Karkanas, P. Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Sports, Ardettou 34b, 116 36 Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Katsarou-Tzeveleki, S. Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Sports, Ardettou 34B, 11636 Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]

iv

Kormazopoulou, L. Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Sports, Ardettou 34b, 116 36 Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Kotsonas, A. Archimedous 37, 11636 Pagrati, Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Kotzamani, G. Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Sports, Ardettou 34b, 116 36 Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. Honorary Director of Antiquities, Νafpliou 3, 15341 Hagia Paraskevi, Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected] Lambropoulos, D. Department of Archaeology and Art History, University of Athens, Ph.D program, University Campus, 15784 Zografou, Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Maniatis, Y. Laboratory of Archaeometry, Institute of Materials Science, National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos,”15310 Hagia Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Mavridis, F. Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Sports, Ardettou 34B, 11636 Athens. E-mail: [email protected] Papadea, A. Secretary of the Central Archaeological Council, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Sports, Bouboulinas 20-22, Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Papatheodorou, G. Department of Geology, University of Patras, 26500 Patras, Greece. E-mail:[email protected] Papagianni, K. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR 7209 du CNRS, Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique, case postale 56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris (France). E-mail: [email protected] Peschlow-Bindokat, A. Deutschen Archäologischen Institut, Zentrale Berlin, Bibliothek, Klassiche Archäologie, Podbielskiallee 69-71, 14195 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] Platon, L. Department of History and Archaeology, University of Athens, University Campus, 15784 Zografou, Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Sampson, A. Department of Mediterranean Studies, University of the Aegean, Rhodes 85100, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Sporn, K. Universität Salzburg, Fachbereich Altertum swissenschaften, Klassische Archäologie, Residenzplatz 1A5020 Salzburg, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]

v

Stampolidis, N.C. Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Neophytou Douka 4, 10674 Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Tankosić, Ž. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, St. Building 130, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. Email: [email protected] Trantalidou, K. Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Sports, Ardettou 34B, 11636 Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Tyree, L. American School of Classical Studies, Souidias 54, 10676, Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Vasilopoulou, V. Honorary General Director of Antiquities, The Hagia Triada Cave Excavations Office,14 Xenofontos str., Syntagma Square, 10557Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Wickens, J. Lawrence University, Appleton, Wisconsin, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Yamaguchi, D. Department of Archaeology and Art History, University of Athens, Ph.D program, University Campus, 15784 Zografou, Athens, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Zampiti, A. IZ΄ Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Aristotelous 16, 58200 Edessa. E-mail: [email protected]

vi

List Of Tables In The Text Table 1.1. Summary of 335 published 14C ages produced by 12 different radiocarbon dating laboratories using both conventional, gas counting and liquid scintillation, and AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) dating techniques. Table 3.1. Methods of chronometric dating of caves and rockshelters (after Schwarcz and Rink 2001). Table 4.1. Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in the Ionian Islands (data from Cherry 1981; 1990, Dousougli 1999, Gubuk 1986, Kavvadias 1984, Kourtessi-Philipakis 1996, Sordinas 1969; 1970; 2003). Table 9.1. Categories of finds of cave assemblages from the Proto-Palatial period. Table 9.2. Categories of finds of cave assemblages from the Neo-Palatial period. Table 12.1. List of cults identified in caves. Table 16.1. Radiocarbon results and sample information (Y.Maniatis). Table 16.2. Condition of preservation of knapped artifacts per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas) Table 16.3. Condition of preservation of knapped artifacts per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas) Table 16.4. Condition of preservation of knapped artifacts per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas) Table 16.5. Basic typological categories per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas). Table 16.6. Basic typological categories per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas). Table 16.7. Basic typological categories per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas). Table 16.8. Tools per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas). Table 16.9. Tools per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas). Table 16.10. Tools per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas). Table 16.11. Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Excavations 2006 and 2007. Total Number of Identified Specimens (NISP): 4284 fragments in the Mammalia/Aves Class. Comments: * Five of those bones were burnt at a heat of 250˚c-650˚c. Among them there are 12 flakes. One bone bear cut marks. ** Four fragments were burnt, one bears a cut mark. ***Five of those bones were burnt at a heat of 350˚c-650˚c. (K. Trantalidou) Table 16.12. Burned lenses (found in trenches 1 and 2, Layer 4, str. 6-14) with more than 70% osteological material belonging to the Final Palaeolithic. Domesticated species are found mostly in the upper strata 6and 7. (K. Trantalidou) Table 16.13. Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Trench 3, layers 8-10, strata 3-6. Excavations 2007. (K.Trantalidou) Table 16.14. Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Burned layers (found in trenches 1-2, layer 4, str. 4-14) with more than 70% osteological material of the Final Palaeolithic period. Specimens indentified as lagomorphs are shown anatomically using the NISP (Number of Indentified Specimens) and the MNI (Minimum

number

of

individuals)

methods. (K. Trantalidou) Table 16.15. Caves and rockshelters on the western and central part of continental Greece, occupied throughout the 15,000 to 9,700 BP. Relative abundances of Ungulates, Small game animals and Carnivores. Key: NISP = Number of Identified Specimens. * Presence of roe deer. # Presence of daim. **107,750 are small, medium and large artiodactyls, treated collectively. Due to intense fragmentation, those specimens correspond to the 75.49% of the whole assemblage. vii

*** 61 (5.1% of the analysed assemblage) are elements of the Cervus/ Capra category.Stratigraphic Unit IV 10,680 ± 90 to 9,525±75 BP at Boila did not yield any bioarchaeological remains. Table 16.16. Caves and rockshelters on the western and central part of continental Greece, occupied throughout the 15,000 to 9,700 BP. Relative abundances of Ungulates, Small game animals and Carnivores. Key: NISP = Number of Identified Specimens. * Presence of roe deer. # Presence of daim. **107,750 are small, medium and large artiodactyls, treated collectively. Due to intense fragmentation, those specimens correspond to the 75.49% of the whole assemblage. *** 61 (5.1% of the analysed assemblage) are elements of the Cervus/ Capra category. Stratigraphic Unit IV 10,680 ± 90 to 9,525±75 BP at Boila did not yield any bioarchaeological remains. Table 16.17. Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Burned layers (found in trenches 1-2, layer 4, str. 4-14) with more than 70% of the osteological material of the Early Holocene period. Specimens indentified as lagomorphs are shown anatomically using the NISP (Number of Indentified Specimens) and the MNI (Minimum number of individuals) methods. (K. Trantalidou) Table 16.18. Anonymus Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Ages at death of the main taxa, based on the fusion of the long bone epiphyses. Observations on material sorted from the burned lenses (found in trenches 1 and 2, layer 4 str. 4-14 ) with more than 70% of bones belonging to the 10th and 9th millennium sequences. The remains of the Caprinae and Suidae families are assigned to the Mid-Holocene period. (K. Trantalidou) Table 16.19. General attributes of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto archaeobotanical assemblage (G. Kotzamani). Table 16.20. Range of species and sum of finds of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto. Late Upper Palaeolithic archaeobotanical assemblage (G. Kotzamani).

viii

List Of Figures Introduction Figure 1. Underground spaces (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 2. Underground spaces (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 3. A rock shlelter in Aetoloakarnania (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 4. Anthropogenic deposits (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 5. Experiencing underground spaces (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 6. Experiencing underground spaces (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 7. Views of the surrounding area from the mountainous landscape of the Leontari Cave, Hymettos Mountain (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 8. Views of the surrounding area from the mountainous landscape of the Leontari Cave, Hymettos Mountain (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 9. An underground space in Attika (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 10. The entrance of the Leontari Cave, Attika with Late Neolithic I-II traces of use (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 11. A Late Neolithic II site, Varassova Mountain, Aetoloakarnania (Photo by F.Mavridis). Figure 12. Vathy Cave, Kalymnos (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 13. Leontari Cave, Hymettos Mountain. Finds of the Classical phase shrine (Photo by F. Mavridis). Main Text Figure 1.1. Map of Greece with the geographic location of the aforementioned archaeological sites. Figure 1.2. The age spans in calendar years BP of the sites in the order they appear in the table based merely on the radiocarbon dated samples. Time gaps in the sequence of the radiocarbon dates of a site do not necessarily

reflect

an

abandonment of the particular site during the corresponding periods, as it isnot always evident that suitable material for 14

C dating can be found from all the consecutive anthropogenic layers. It is worth noticing that in the case of many

caves and rockshelters the archaeological evidence shows broader limits of their use. For more information concerning the human presence in each site through time one should refer to the relative publication of the results of the archaeological research. Figures 1.3-1.20. The probability distribution, within 1 (1σ) and 2 (2σ) standard deviations of the calendar dates of the samples from each site sorted by age, thus, without taking into account any localised chronostratigraphical particularities. Figure 2.1a-b. a) Photomicrograph of burnt dung deposits from the external chamber of Kouveleiki Cave A showing dark fragments of sheep/goat coprolites inside gray wood ash crystals and pseudomorphic cellular wood structures (plane polarized light). b) Photograph of thin section of a sample with three superimposed constructed floors (1, 2 and 3) from the interior chamber of Kouveleiki Cave A. The black arrow shows the sharp upper contact of plastered floor 2 and the white arrow a clay rich finishing coat of plastered floor 3. Figure 2.2. Photomicrograph of a lime plastered floor from Drakaina Cave, Poros, Kefalonia. The floor is composed of grayish fine micritic lime and large amount of lime lumps (half reacted lime). Also shown is a dense system of shrinkage fractures (plane polarized light).

ix

Figure 2.3. Hagios Haralambos Cave, Lasithi, Crete. Photomicrograph of clayey sediment containing rounded and subrounded human bone fragments (some labeled with B) and vesicle pores (V) (plane polarized light). Figure 2.4. Photomicrograph of cemented ash from Lakonis Cave Complex. Grey wood ash crystals and pseudomorphic cellular wood structures (middle of the photograph) embedded in white calcitic cement (plane polarized light). Figure 2.5. Constructed clay hearths from Kleisoura Cave 1. a) Photograph from the excavation of the lower part of the Aurignacian sequence of Kleisoura Cave 1 presenting well-preserved superimposed clay structures. b) Photomicrograph of the upper contact (with arrow) showing light gray ash crystals impregnating the underlying clay structure. Note the dark appearance of the clay clay aggregates due to burning (crossed polarized light) and the white speckled chert inclusions (CH). c) Lower contact (with arrow) between the dense clay structure and the underlying porous burnt remains (plane polarized light). Figure 2.6. Photomicrograph of sediment from Theopetra Cave affected by frost. The sediment has a lenticular microstructure produced by repeated freeze-thaw activity (plane polarized light). Figure 3.1. Cave breccias (Photo by P. Sondaar). Figure 3.2. Candiacervus species II (Museum of Palaeontology and Geology, National University of Athens). Figure 3.3. Lutrogale cretensis (Museum of Palaeontology and Geology, National Universityof Athens). Figure 3.4. Hippo bones-a source of worship in Cyprus (Museum of Paleontology and Geology, National University of Athens). Figure 4.1. Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in the Ionian Islands (Data from Cherry 1981; 1990, Dousougli 1999, Gubuk 1986, Kavvadias 1984, Kourtessi-Philipakis 1996, Sordinas 1969; 1970; 2003). Figure 4.2. Estimate of eustatic sea-level change (dashed curve) for the past 150000 years based on observed shore-line age-depth relations and models of ice sheets melting for the last 18000 years and on oxygen isotope data from deep-sea cores (after Shackleton 1987) for the earlier period. The solid curve represents the predicted sea-level variations for Paros in the Cyclades (modified from Lambeck 1996). Figure 4.3. Palaeoshoreline map of north-western Greece and Corfu in the Ionian Sea at five key moments from Middle Palaeolithic to Early Neolithic. (a) present day m.s.l. (b) -80 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline. (c) -60 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline. (d) -120 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Last Glacial Maximum). (e) -50 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic transition). (f) -20 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition). Figure 4.4. Palaeoshoreline map of western Greece and the Ionian Islands (Leukada, Kefalonia, Ithaka and Zakynthos) at five key moments from Middle Palaeolithic to Early Neolithic. (a) present day m.s.l. (b) -100 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline. (c) -80 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline.

x

(d) -120 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Last Glacial Maximum). (e) -50 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic transition). (f) -20 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition). Figure 5.1. Map of Greece showing the Palaeolithic caves mentioned in the text. Figure 5.2. Theopetra Cave from the W-NW. General view (Courtesy of N. Kyparissi-Apostolika). Figure 5.3. Anonymous Cave Schisto, Keratsini from W. (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 6.1. Mesolithic and Neolithic cave sites in the east Adriatic area (Croatia, Herzegovina, Montenegro). Numbers refer to the cave site register at the end of the paper. Figure 6.2. The Interior of Vela spila [21] on the Island of Korčula (Čečuk & Radić 2005, Fig. 14). Figure 6.3. View of the Odmut rockshelter [33] in Montenegro (Marković 1974, Fig. 1). Figure.6.4. View of Crvena stijena [30] in Montenegro (Benac 1957a, Fig. B). Figure 7.1. Late Neolithic pithos relief showing a male and a female figure; Skoteini Cave, Euboea. Figure 7.2. Late Neolithic scoop; Skoteini Cave, Euboea. Figure 7.3. Middle Neolithic red-on-white painted vase with canvas pattern; Cyclops Cave, Gioura, North Sporades. Figure 7.4. Various Middle and Late Neolithic painted ceramic fragments; Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia. Figure 7.5. Late Neolithic figurine fragments; Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia. Figure 7.6. Assemblage of LN II figurines found together with deer antlers at Trench D;Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia. Figure 8.1. Top plan and sections of the “Dog Cave” in the Zakros Gorge (Zakros excavation archive). Figure 8.2. The entrance of the cave in the small fjord to the south of the Zakros bay, called by the locals ‘Mavro Avlaki’ (Zakros excavation archive). Figure 8.3. Megalithic wall in Mavro Avlaki closing the ascent from the cave up to the plateau above it (Zakros excavation archive). Figure 8.4. Building remains on a terrace immediately below the entrance of Cave A at Riza Spiliara Zakrou (Zakros excavation archive). Figure 8.5. View from the interior of Cave A at Riza Spiliara (Zakros excavation archive). Figure 8.6. The mouth of the cave at the precipitous site “Tis Ouranias to Froudi”, in the Zakros Gorge (Zakros excavation archive). Figure 9.1. Map of Crete, showing the distribution of caves (white circles) against Minoan ritual caves (black squares). Data taken from Faure 1964, no. 3 and Tyree 1975, no. 5. Figure 9.2. The interior of Psychro Cave (Photo by E. Faro). Figure 9.3. View across valley from terrace in front of Kamares Cave (Photo by E. Faro). Figure 10.1. Map of Crete indicating caves, peak sanctuaries, and palaces mentioned in the text. (Map courtesy Kevin Glowacki, Texas A&M University). Figure 10.2. Entrance to Skoteino Cave on the north central coast of Crete. An example of a large, downward cave (Photo by Harriet L. Robinson).

xi

sloping

Figure 10.3. Steep slope, Level I, Skoteino Cave (Photo by Loeta Tyree). Figure 10.4. Entrance (where person standing) to the semi-secluded chamber, Level II, Skoteino Cave. A flattopped (altar-like) stalagmite is visible beyond the fallen stalactite touched by the person (Photo by Konstantina Aretaki). Figure 11.1. Map of Crete showing sites mentioned in the text: caves are underlined. Regional borders are modern. Figure 11.2. Previously unpublished photograph from D.G. Hogarth’s excavations in the Cave of Psychro in 1899 (Courtesy of the British School at Athens). Figure 11.3. Photograph of the rock-shelter at Patsos, occupied by the small church of Hagios Antonios (photograph by A. Kotsonas) Figure 11.4. Plan of the Idaean Cave showing the excavation’s grid system and the distribution of some types of finds (reproduced from Sakellarakis 1988, 186 with permission by G. Sakellarakis). Figure 11.5. Photograph of the mouth of the Idaean Cave (reproduced from Sakellarakis 1987, 240 with permission by G. Sakellarakis). Figure 11.6. Detail of the central part of the bronze tympanum from the Idaean Cave showing a deity of

Near Eastern

style; diameter 0.55m. (reproduced with permission by N. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki). Figure 12.1. Map of sacred caves in modern Greece (made by K. Sporn, illustrated by W. Aulman). Figure 12.2. Votive relief from the Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompei, Early Hellenistic, (reproduc-tion after Seiler 1992, 614: DAI, InstNegB 832164, P. Grunwald). Figure 12.3. Corycian Cave, entrance with remains of the built altar (Photo by B. Eder). Figure 13.1. Ground plans of the Sperlonga Grotto and the Nimfeo Bergantino (Drawn to the same scale. With kind permission by Kjeld de Fine Licht). Figure 13.2. Ground plan of the Blue Grotto (Illustration by M. Hermannsen based on Kyrle). Figure 13.3. Ground plan of the Grotto dell´Arsenale (Illustration by M. Hermannsen based on Kyrle). Figure 13.4. View into the Matermania Grotto (Photo by M. Hermannsen). Figure 13.5. Ground plan of the Matermania Grotto. (Illustration by M. Hermannsen based on Kyrle). Figure 13.6. View out of Grotto dell´ Arsenale (Photo by M. Hermannsen). Figure 14.1. Ephyra. Excavation Site Plan after Dakaris 1993, 15 Figure 14.2. Herakleia Pontike. Cave II (after Hoepfner 1972, pl. 5) Figure 14.3. Sternis Bay. Excavation Site Plan (after Ogden 2001, 36 fig. 6) Figure 14.4. Cumae. So called „Sibyl’s Cave“ (after Amalfitano 1990, 289) Figure 14.5. Hierapolis. Excavation Site Plan of the Apollo Temple (after Friese 2012, 173) Figure 14.6. Monte Gargano. Grotto of Saint Michael (after Keyserlingk 1987, 241 fig. 40-41) Figure 16.1. The entrance of the cave and the surrounding area (Photo by F. Mavridis). Figure 16.2. Sketch plan of the excavation (Th. Hatzitheodorou). Figure 16.3. The area of the excavation (Photo by F. Mavridis).

xii

Figure 16.4. Stratigraphy and representative finds of the Late Pleistocene/ Early Holocene phases (Photos by F. Mavridis, Illustrations by D.Yamaguchi). Figure 16.5. Bar diagram of 2σ calibrated ages (Y. Maniatis). Figure 16.6. Geomorphological analysis and sampled layers (Photo by P. Karkanas). Figure 16.7. Flakes (Photos by A. Papadea). Figure 16.8. Blades (Photos by A. Papadea, Illustration by D. Bakogiannaki). Figure 16.9. Selected lithics: carinated scraper, point on flake, retouched blade, scraper, double backed blade, non geometric microlith (Photo by A. Papadea, Illustrations by D. Bakogiannaki). Figure 16.10. Hooked-type bone artifact (Illustration by D. Yamaguchi) Figure 16.11. Archaeobotanical remains: Avena sp, Lathyrus sp, Hordeum sp, Juniperus sp, Alkanna sp, Lithospermum sp. (Photo by A. Iliakopoulos). Figure 16.12. Percentages of prehistoric pottery per phase (2006-2007). Figure 16.13. Middle-Late Neolithic sherds (Photo by Z. Tankosic). Figure 16.14. Late Neolithic Ib-II pottery (Photo by Z. Tankosic). Figure 16.15. Early Bronze Age pottery (Photo by Z. Tankosic). Figure 16.16. Historical Times: sherds (Photo by L. Kormazopoulou). Figure 16.17. Sherds of Late/Post Roman pottery (Photo by L. Kormazopoulou). Abbildungen 17.1. Blick auf den See und das Gebirge vom Südufer des Sees. Abbildungen 17.2a-c. Kovanalan, Höhle. a. von außern, b. Inneres, c. Nische mit Felsbild Abbildungen 17.3. Verwitterungsformen des Latmos: Schildkröte. Abbildungen 17.4. Karte des Küstenverlaufs im Chalkolithikum (nach Brückner) Abbildungen 17.5. Die Bergspitze, Thron des Wettergottes. Abbildungen 17.6. Verbreitungskarte der Felsbilder und der prähistorischen Fundstellen. Abbildungen 17.7a-c. Balıktaş, ’Felskammer’. a. Blick von Süden, b. Grundriß (Zeichnung S. Grabowski), c. Schnitt (Zeichnung S. Grabowski). Abbildungen 17.8a-b. Balıktaş, Deckenbild. a. Gesamtansicht, b. Bilder der südlichen Deckenhälfte mi ’Familienszenen’ Abbildungen 17.9a-c. Ikizada. a. Luftbild der Region, die roten Ziffern bezeichnen die Felsbildfundstellen (Foto D. Gansera), b. Blick in die Versturzhöhle, c. Plan der Höhle (Zeichnung S. Grabowski). Abbildungen 17.10a-b. Ikizada, Höhle. a. Deckenbild (farbverstärkt), b. Kopie des Deckenbildes (Zeichnung S. Grabowski). Abbildungen 17.11a-c. Göktep-Βezirk. a. Blick von Westen (der rote Pfeil bezeichnet den Eingang, das rote Kreuz die Lage des Felsbildes), b. Felsbild, c. Ausschnitt des Felsbildes mit Darstellung eines Paares von Mann und Frau. Abbildungen 17.12a-b. Karadere-Höhle. a. Luftbild des Bezirkes (das rote Kreuz bezeichnet die Höhle, der rote Pfeil den Eingang / Foto D. Gansera), b. Blick auf den Höhleneingang Abbildungen 17.13. Karadere-Höhle, Inneres. Abbildungen 17.14a-b. Tal der Christus-Höhle. a. Blick auf das Tal von Süden, b. Plan des Tales. Abbildungen 17.15a-d. Christus-Höhle. a. Ansicht von Westen (Zeichnung S. Grabowski), b. Blick in die nördliche Hälfte der Höhle, c-d. Miniaturgefäß aus der Nordostecke der Höhle.

xiii

Abbildungen 17.16a-c. Tal der Christus-Höhle, 'Wohnhöhle' (Nr. 5 auf Plan Abb. 14 b). a. Inneres, b. Eingang (Zeichnung S. Grabowski), c. Grundriss (Zeichnung S. Grabowski). Abbildungen 17.17a-b. Tal der Christus-Höhle. Funde aus einer Felsspalte. a. Miniaturbecher (Zeichnung S. Grabowski), b. zoomorphes Gefäß bzw. Tierfigur (Zeichnung S. Grabowski). Abbildungen 17.18a-b. Schalenfragment mit Knaufrippe aus dem Tal der Christus-Höhle (b. Zeichnung S. Grabowski). Abbildungen 17.19a-b. Tal der Christus-Höhle. Als Tierkopf gestaltete Knubbe eines Henkels (b. Zeichnung S. Grabowski). Abbildungen 17.20a-b. Halsamphora vom Felshang westlich des Tales. der Christus-Höhle (b. Zeichnung S. Grabowski). Abbildungen 17.21a-b. Funde vom Felshang westlich des Tales. der Christus-Höhle a. Tonfigur eines Bären, b. Halsamphorenfragment mit männlicher Figur mit Hörnern auf dem Kopf. Figure 18.1. Sherds of Corinthian vases Figure 18.2. Krateriskoi Figure 18.3. Black-figured and white-ground lekythoi. One at the centre is decorated with a battle scene. Figure 18.4a-e. Pyxides (a-c), thurible lid (d) and skyphos (e) Figure 18.5. Black-figured oinochoai Figure 18.6. Mesomphalos phialai Figure 18.7. Red-figured loutrophoroi Figure 18.8. Red-figured lebetes gamikoi Figure 18.9. Sherds of red-figured lekythoi and unidentified vases Figure 18.10. Pieces of a red-figured bell-krater and a kantharos Figure 18.11. Red-figured sherd probably of a chous Figure 18.12a-d. Black-glazed saltcellar(a), pyxis (b-c) and Rhenia type cup (d) Figure 18.13. Acrocup Figure 18.14. Stamped designs in the interior of the Acrocup Figure 18.15. Miniature pointed amphoriskos Figure 18.16a-b. Miniature skyphos-krateriskos (a) and piece of a black-glazed kantharos (b) Figure 18.17. Stamped motifs in the interior of the black-glazed kantharos Figure 18.18. Kalathoi Figure 18.19a-b. Pieces of two kantharoi with West slope decoration (a) and of one side-pouring lekythos (b) Figure 18.20. Oinochoe with West slope decoration Figure 18.21a-b. Pieces of a pyxis lid (a) and a relief bowl with West slope decoration (b) Figure 18.22. Sherds of red-glazed relief bowls Figure 18.23. Red-glazed miniature lekanis Figure 18.24. Pieces of transport amphorae Figure 18.25. Cooking ware Figure 18.26. Black-glazed lamp pieces of the 5th century B.C. Figure 18.27. Lamp pieces of the early Roman times. Figure 18.28. Lamp pieces of the 4th century A.D..

xiv

Figure 18.29. Sherds of krateriskoi decorated with several themes. Figure 19.1. Map of Greece with the position of the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Illustration by F. Lambezakis). Figure 19.2. View of the northeast slopes of the Mount Helikon with the location of the Cave (Photo by N. Skoumi). Figure 19.3. Entrance and outer plateau of the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Photo by N. Skoumi). Figure 19.4. Detail photo from the Middle Helladic pyre’s microstratigraphy (Photo by P. Karkanas). Figure 19.5. Fragments from Middle Helladic ‘Adriatic’ incised ware (Photo by S. Katsarou). Figure 19.6. Early Helladic II bull figurine (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.7. A Mycenean kylix with painted decoration. (Photo by S. Katsarou). Figure 19.8. Examples of Corinthian vases (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.9. Hellenistic vases (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.10. Attic kylikes (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.11. Attic skyphoi (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.12. Black-figure lekythoi (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.13. Various types of Archaic figurines including a number of plan-like examples (Photo by Y. Maravelias) Figure 19.14. Figurines of Aphrodite (Photo by Y. Maravelias) Figures 19.15-17. Fragments of figurines of Pan in various types (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.18. Hellenistic figurines including several Tanagra figurines (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.19. Bone artifacts and astragaloi (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.20. Fragments of marble statues (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

xv

Abbreviations AA ΑΑΑ ActaArchLov Aegaeum Agora AJA AJP AM AnalRom AntK AntK-BH AntP AntW Archaeometry ArchCl ArchDelt ArcheologiaWar ArchEph ArchKorrBl ArchIug ASAtene AST BABesch BalkSt BAR BAR-IS BCH BdA BÉFAR BIABulg BibAr BICS BullCom BSA CAJ CJ ClAnt Corinth CRAI CretChron CurrAnthr CVA CW Délos DocPraeh EAA EntrHardt

Archaeologisher Anzeiger Αρχαιολογικά Ανάλεκτα εξ Αθηνών Acta Archaeologica Lovanensia Aegaeum: Annales d’archéologie égéenne de l’Université de Liège The Athenian Agora American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Philology Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Antike Kunst Antike Kunst Beiheft Antike Plastik Antike Welt. Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte Archaeometry. Bulletin of the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford University Archeologia Classica Archaiologikon Deltion (’Αρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον) Archeologia. Rocznik Instytutu historii kultury materialnej Polskiej akademii nauk [Warsaw] Archaiologike Ephemeris Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt Archaeologia Iugoslavica Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Ιtaliane in Oriente Arastirma Sonuclari Toplantisi Bulletin antieke beschaving. Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology Balkan Studies British Archaeological Reports British Archaeological Reports International Series Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Bollettino d'Arte Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome Izvestija na Arheologiceskija institut. Bulletin de l’Institut archéologique bulgare Bibliotheca Archaeologica [Rome] Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma Annual of the British School at Athens Cambridge Archaeological Journal The Classical Journal Classical Antiquity Corinth. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres [Paris] Kretika chronika. Keimena kai meletai tes kretikes istorias (Κρητικὰ χρονικά. Κείμενα καὶ μελέται τῆς κρητικῆς ἱστορίας) Current Anthropology Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Classical World Exploration archéologique de Délos faite par l’École française d’Athènes Documenta Praehistorica Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica, Classica e Orientale Entretiens Hardt

xvi

Ergon GaR GRBS Hesperia IstMitt JAnthArch J Archaeol Method Th JAS JdI JdI-EH JFA JHE JHS JMA JRS JWP Kadmos Kerameikos KNAW Latomus LIMC MAA MarbWPr MÉFR MÉFRA MdI-BH Milet MonAnt OJA OpArch OpAth PCPS PP PPS Prakt PZ Quatern Res RE REG RendPontAcc RStLig Sci Am SIMA SIMA-PB SkrAth SMEA TAPA WA ZPE

To Ergon tes Archaiologikes Etaireias (Τὸ Ἔργον τῆς ’Αρχαιολογικῆς ‘Εταιρείας) Greece and Rome Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Hesperia. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Istanbuler Mitteilungen Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Journal of Archaeological Science Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Ergänzungsheft Journal of Field Archaeology Journal of Human Evolution Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology Journal of Roman Studies Journal of World Prehistory Kadmos. Zeitschrift für vor- und frühgriechische Epigraphik Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Amsterdam Latomus. Revue d’études latines Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Marburger Winckelmann-Programm Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École française de Rome Mélanges de l'École française de Rome, Antiquité Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, (Athenische Abteilung Beiheft) Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899 Monumenti antichi Oxford Journal of Archaeology Opuscula Archaeologica Opuscula Atheniensia Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society La Parola del Passato Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias (Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν ’Αθήναις ’Αρχαιολογικῆς ‘Εταιρείας) Prähistorische Zeitschrift Quaternary Research Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenchaft Revue des études grecques Rendiconti. Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia de Louvain Rivista di Studi Liguri Scientific American Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature. Pocketbook Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici Transactions of the American Philological Association World Archaeology Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

xvii

Opening Remarks

As protective shells for cultural remains, caves enjoy great advantages over open air sites, which are directly affected by weather conditions and the passage of human beings. Inside caves, the traces of human activity are sealed by the passage of time in a series of “palimpsest” levels from different phases that await excavation and interpretation. The remains found in caves are both “visible” and “invisible”. The latter include mythological remains which are, of course, the depictions on the vases and the subjects carved in the reliefs that are frequently found inside caves. Nevertheless, before they became cult places in the Historical period, caves were places of seasonal occupation in Prehistoric times. The stratigraphy of many caves covers a vast span of cultural time, and in exceptional cases, such as in the Theopetra Cave, the ground is undisturbed and has to the present day preserved the traces of the feet that walked on it. The excavation of a cave is not a treasure hunt in search of finds, but the reconstruction of the image of other Eras and the interpretation of the codes of the life and culture of our ancestors. It is an interdisciplinary obligation and a collective debt. Dr. Vivi Vasilopoulou Honorary General Director of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage

xviii

It is a great pleasure to participate in the present volume having as a subject the use of caves and the title “Stable Spaces-Changing Perceptions:Cave Archaeology in Greece”. Similar volumes are planned and will be published in the future presenting all recent field research of one of the responsible departments of the Ministry of Culture for the preservation, protection and excavation of caves and that is the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece. This volume with 19 contributions, all dedicated to the research of the Greek caves, but also presenting indicative cave uses of other Mediterranean regions, represents a contribution, not only from the archaeological point of view but also from the geological and palaeontological one, which comes to fill a gap in the Greek literature. With a 30 year experience related to the excavation and research of the Greek caves, we are certain for the important role that caves played on the survival of early human traces under extreme weather conditions as well as in the expression of the different religious beliefs of past people, from, at least the Minoan times until today, with a special emphasis during the Archaic and Classical times. Cave research has exceptionally contributed to our understanding of early human evolution and practice. Important new finds from all over Greece change our perception of the important role of these early pioneers in the Greek Peninsula. Palaeontological and geological research gives important information for species that are not well known from open air sites but also contributes to our knowledge of the climatological and environmental conditions of the past. We congratulate the editors and the British Archaeological Reports for publishing such a volume and we cordially wish to become widely accepted by the scientific community. Dr. N. Kyparissi-Apostolika Honorary Director of the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of S. Greece

xix

Preface Fanis Mavridis and Jesper Tae Jensen As suggested above by Vivi Vasilopoulou, caves represent protective shells for cultural and other types of remains, inside which they are usually found in a better state of preservation when compared to those coming from open air sites. Caves are considered to be important elements of world’s cultural heritage, since they have been actively used by man. Because of that, they possess significant historical, archaeological, anthropological, and generally scientific value (Fanis Mavridis, Jesper Tae Jensen and Lina Kormazopoulou, introductory paper). Therefore, their research is of exceptional importance for understanding aspects of the human use of past landscapes. This volume, as well as others that are planned to be published by the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, as it is referred to by Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika in her prologue to this volume, arrive to fill this gap in the Greek archaeological literature. This volume should be considered as an introduction to cave archaeology, (or it can be used as a reader on aspects of cave research); its purpose is to underline the importance of caves in scientific research be it archaeological, palaeontological, or environmental. In this sense, the present volume does not aim to present new field data only but rather to provide a résumé of what is currently known in Greece about cave research. At the same time, contributions concerning areas other than Greece, such as the uses of caves in the Balkan Prehistory (contribution by Frank Falkenstein), a very interesting use of upland location in the Latmos area (contribution by Annelise PeschlowBindokat), the Roman uses of caves with their transformation into artificial grottoes (contribution by Mette Hermannsen), provide important evidence that supports the theoretical considerations presented in the introductory paper of this volume. The present anthology intends to show that landscapes are filled with different meanings related to symbolic order contained within human social structures. It is the human perception, specific context, and socioeconomic background that matters in trying to identify cave uses. Therefore, especially in the Aegean, the role of caves needs to be reexamined. Caves need to be seen as part of a wider landscape within specific spatiotemporal contexts. It is important to explore their meaning and significance as natural monuments experienced by people who perceived their world in multiple ways and acted in their lives with different intentions. A limited number of topics are considered here, and more are planned for forthcoming volumes. For example, the use of caves in the Neolithic period is only partly explored. Some references to the Neolithic are present in this volume’s introductory paper (Fanis Mavridis et al). An important new aspect of the uses of caves during the Neolithic period of Mainland Greece, the symbolic one, is recognized by recent studies. This aspect is the subject of the paper presented by Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki and Adamantios Sampson as it seems to be the case of the use of an upland location in the Latmos region (Annelise Peschlow-Bindokat's contribution). Also, the consideration of the characteristics of cave uses in the Bronze Age Mainland Greece is only brief (see the introductory paper by Fanis Mavridis, Jesper Tae Jensen, and Lina Kormazopoulou). It will be of great importance, for example, to examine, in a future paper, aspects of the uses of caves in Mycenaean Greece, their similarities or differences with Minoan Crete etc. In this respect, several papers that focus on the Cretan caves represent a synthesis as well as the present state of research (contributions by Lefteris Platon, Nikolaos Stampolidis and Antonis Kotsonas) or they explore aspects such as the definition of the ritual caves in Bronze Age Crete (Loeta Tyree’s contribution) and the role that caves played in the ritual and sociopolitical landscape of Minoan Crete (Elissa Faro’s contribution). This interest in Cretan caves can be explained by the fact that they have a long history of exploration (see contribution of Nikolaos Stampolidis and Antonis Kotsonas) and possibly because they have been more successfully embedded in the wider archaeological research and understanding of the island’s past than caves elsewhere. This is not the reality in other regions in which cave research cannot but be considered as limited, since it has not really been a part of the wider archaeological research efforts. New research, however, may change our ideas concerning the use and importance of caves during the Bronze Age phases of the Mainland Greece (see the introductory paper by Fanis Mavridis, Jesper Tae Jensen, and Lina Kormazopoulou). Regarding the earlier phases of the Stone Age, caves represent important records of preserved archaeological evidence, as it is shown in the contribution by Antigone Papadea. The paper by Fanis Mavridis et al. concerning the preliminary presentation of the excavations of the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece at the Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini, Attika aims to be complementary to the above mentioned paper, but also to present a case of diachronic cave use that ranges from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition to the Classical times. At the same time, this example shows how important the contribution of the specialized scientific research (study of sediments, zooarchaeological and plant remains analyses) is for understanding the uses and the importance of caves in the past. In this field, Michalis Dermitzakis’ contribution analyzes in much detail the importance of caves for palaeontological research, while Panagiotis Karkanas’ contribution addresses the analysis of anthropogenic cave sediments. The article of Yorgos Ferentinos, Maria Gkioni, and Maria Geraga investigates such topics as the relation between environmental changes and early prehistoric sites on the Ionian Islands. The presentation of a selection of absolute dates from Greek caves by

xx

Yorgos Facorellis is also important. As he says in his paper, “it gives excavators and other researchers related to cave research an opportunity to re-explore the time span of specific cave sites”, since he explores “the accuracy and reliability of the radiocarbon dating method that has been increased considerably through the last years”. The significance of caves as cult places in Classical and Roman times as well as the Christian uses of caves was only briefly considered in the introductory paper by Fanis Mavridis, Jesper Tae Jensen, and Lina Kormazopoulou, since they represent complicated subjects with many different parameters that go beyond the scope of this publication. Contributions in this volume such as that of Vivi Vasilopoulou, Katja Sporn, Alexandra Zampiti, Nikolaos Stampolidis and Antonis Kotsonas for the Aegean, Wiebke Friese for the Graeco-Roman world and Mette Hermannsen for Italy give an excellent account of the range of cave uses during Classical and Roman times, while Jere Wickens’ contribution fills a gap in the relevant literature concerning the non ritual uses of caves during the same time period. Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika’s article has been selected to act as an epilogue to the present volume since it gives important clues on the character of cave exploration, excavation, and factors affecting the preservation of human activities based on her experience of more than 20 years in the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of the Greek Archaeological Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture. As we iterate in more detail in our introductory paper, with the present volume we aim to show that ancient landscapes and natural geological formations are very important contexts of human activity, while their specific use and meaning depend on human perception of landscapes and personal experience, regardless of a pre-existing meaning. Such natural formations must be regarded as cultural and historical monuments that integrate important aspects of human ideology and culture. This book has been long time in the making, and now only one final matter remains to be done, which is the most pleasant of all tasks involved in producing this book—to thank all those in any way involved in its completion. We thank all the contributors to this volume for their collaboration, expertise, and, most of all, the patience they showed through its several reiteration. We are extremely grateful to the Department of Classical Archaeology, SAXO Institute, University of Copenhagen, particularly to Jane Fejfer, Annette Rathje, Kristina Winther-Jacobsen and Lone Wriedt Sørensen for facilitating the completion of the project during 2008 to 2013. We are also very grateful to the family that owns Beau Marché, Copenhagen, Denise Lee Dann and Steen Folke Madsen and their beautiful children Elisabeth Lee Dann, Julie Sasha Lee Dann, Danielle Lee Dann and not least Christian Lee Dann for facilitating the final completion of the book. We further wish to thank the staff at Beau Marché, especially Julie Aagard, Henriette Luise Karen Kirstein and Josephine Bourghardt for their kindness. We also wish to thank, for practical matters, Charlotte Hollegaard Steffensen, Thomas Grane, Kees van der Veer, Christian Ammitzbøll Thomsen and not least Nora Margherita Pedersen, all connected to the SAXO Institute at the University of Copenhagen. We also wish to thank the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, especially the former as well as the current directors Dr. N. Kyparissi-Apostolika and Dr. E. Panagopoulou-Karambela, respectively, for their continuous support and for facilitating various stages in the editing process. It is also a pleasure to record our gratitude to the following friends and colleagues who have helped and discussed various aspects of this project with us, provided information and reports, commented on drafts of the papers, and improved some of the texts: Sara Bortignon, Camilla Bjarnø, Clay Coffer, Lisbeth Bredholt Christensen, Gianna Efstathiou, Hedvig von Ehrenheim, Pelly Fotiadi, Alexandra van der Geer, Liv Beier Heckmann, George Hinge, Karina Broby Hunnerup, Tamara Japaridze, Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki, Lina Kormazopoulou, Georgia Kotzamani, Lisbeth and Søren Kroer, Trine Lærke Kristensen, Nanna Laksø, Sarah Sonne Larsen, Michaelis Lefantzis, Antigone Papadea, Erasmia Politis, David Scahill, Zarko Tankosic, Victoria Tsoukala, Lambrini and Panos Vasilakopoulos, Jere Wickens, and Alexandra Zampiti. Birgitte Kofoed Fundas, Karen Danielsen, Ittai Dan Gradel, Lars Gorm Pontoppidan and Katerina Tsalapatis provided much help with some of the texts, while Peter Schultz and Bronwen Wickkiser provided useful advices in the process of editing this book. Pernille Foss and Bo Jensen, Department of Archaeology, SAXO Institute at the University of Copenhagen always assisted us in finding numerous reference articles and books. Last but not least we would like to thank our friend and colleague Dimitris Lambropoulos, who offered practical support and patiently worked on various drafts of the text.

xxi

STABLE SPACES – CHANGING PERCEPTION: CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE cases, share common characteristics with other marginal environments, like seascapes.

Introduction Stable Spaces – Changing Perception: Cave Archaeology In Greece

In the evolving landscape of the Mediterranean area, caves became places tied with the changing ideas of people about their surroundings. Caves were always thought of as being related to the unknown and mysterious, as places beyond the living world. They were usually considered as places of death, shelters of deities or of the divine revelation, even dwellings of monsters and chthonic creatures (see section below: The Archaic and Classical periods in the Greek Mainland). Hades, the place of the dead for the ancient Greeks, was approached through caves (see section below: The Archaic and Classical periods in the Greek Mainland), while the Spartan Kaiadas and the Minoan labyrinth indicate the prominent symbolic and allegoric significance of caves by ancient societies.

Fanis Mavridis, Jesper Tae Jensen and Lina Kormazopoulou Caves: General Characteristics Caves are natural underground chambers formed by a variety of processes that range from micro-organisms to a combination of chemical and other factors, chiefly tectonic forces and water erosion. The great majority has been formed in limestone landscapes by dissolution. Availability of space and size vary greatly (Figs. 2). Rockshelters are shallow cavities that commonly lack the formation of speleothems and the characteristic conditions of cave environments (Fig. 3). Several living species are endemic to caves since they represent particular ecological niches.

All contributions included in this anthology, even if they reflect different theoretical and methodological approaches on the study of caves, clearly suggest that stable parts of the landscape and natural geological formations are very important contexts of human activity, while their specific use and meaning depend on the human perception of landscape and personal experience, regardless of any pre-existing meaning. Such natural formations must be regarded as cultural and historical monuments integrating important aspects of human ideology and culture. A good example of this is met in the Roman culture, where the existing trend of manipulating nature was vividly expressed in the art of transforming natural caves into artificial grottoes (Hermannsen this volume).

Karstic environments usually present undisturbed records of landform evolution (Strauss 1997, 6), where climatic and past environmental conditions as well as human activities are preserved (Fig. 4). According to Geoff Bailey and Nena Galanidou, the latter typically occur in the form of low resolution palimpsests resulting from low rates of sedimentation and mixing by natural and anthropogenic processes (Bailey and Galanidou 2009, 215). Caves are considered as important elements of world cultural heritage, having been actively used by man, with significant scientific, historical, archaeological, and anthropological value. However, it is not only their unique value, regarding these aspects, that makes caves particularly important. Even when they do not preserve any human or other traces (e.g. palaeontological), they constitute exceptional natural monuments, sometimes of a rare beauty, and are therefore protected by public or international authorities like UNESCO (see also a relevant introduction by Stavroula SamartzidouOrkopoulou 2005, 10-13).

Our studies should focus not only on the typical settlement locations but also on different types of sites which can shed light on various aspects of human life through their particular characteristics. Landscapes are never static, they are always in a process through which social realities are being produced and reproduced (Chapman 1997a, 142). Nowadays, landscape notions emphasize their sociosymbolic dimensions; how landscape is perceived, experienced, and contextualized by man (Knapp and Ashmore 1999, 1). Caves, as one among few locales in the landscape where human traces are usually identified, can play a prominent role in the study of various parameters as those mentioned above. It is important to explore their meaning and significance as natural monuments, experienced by people who perceived their world in multiple ways and acted with different intentions.

An extended list of cave uses varying through time and space can be provided, however, the list would never be full: places for permanent or periodical residence, production or storage, dump places, water sources, mines/quarries, pens or shelters for animals, cult or burial sites, spots for execution, refuges from danger or refuges for outlaws, outcasts and victims of epidemics as well as places for biological, environmental, palaeontological, archaeological, anthropological or other scientific research, touristic destinations etc.

The Role And Significance Of Caves Caves are stable topographical elements of landscapes. In any case, it is the changing human perception together with environmental conditions that defines their meaning as sites.

Some of the above mentioned uses of caves, such as refuges or places of exile or isolation, are characteristic of marginal landscapes and, in this sense, caves in some

It is difficult to recognize the character of cave occupation, especially with reference to the Stone Age 1

FANIS MAVRIDIS, JESPER TAE JENSEN AND LINA KORMAZOPOULOU (see discussion in Stratouli 1998). It is in question, for instance, whether traits generally considered as typical of the Neolithic way of life, such as permanent occupation in lowland areas with fertile lands, may generally apply for a better comprehension and definition of landscape exploitation in the Aegean Final Neolithic; it seems that during this period both highland sites and caves are used for habitation, architectural traces are in several cases ephemeral. Hunting seems to constitute an important economic and social strategy (see for example, Mavridis 2006).

interaction, economic resources, risk, land use, and topography (Brück and Goodman 1999, 7). The study of sites such as caves is very significant, as it indicates population movement in and between loci (Knapp and Ashmore 1999, 2). The following typical example is related to the exploration and study of the Neolithic space: for decades, tell sites have been the focus of Neolithic research, as if they were the only site types used in Neolithic landscapes. All theoretical considerations about Neolithic societies have derived from the study of these “central places”. All economic and social transformations were supposed to be found in tell sites, while in cases of “absences” or “discontinuities” in the cultural sequence of these sites, major gaps were invented, such as the gap between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. It has not been apparent that space could be differentially perceived in various spatiotemporal contexts. There is no reason why Mesolithic traces had to be concentrated at the basal levels of tell sites. After field studies moved to different types of locations, such as islands or caves, it finally became possible to identify both transitional and earlier related material. Relatively recently, thorough study of other types of sites also began, such as flat settlements, which represent a different space use in comparison to tell settlements (for example, Kotsakis 1999; 2003). The same holds for island archaeology, where biogeographical approaches formed a specific way of understanding and studying seascapes without the presence of any other alternative approach (Mavridis 2007 [2009]; 2008; 2010). By these examples it is suggested that in order to grasp the significance of space both synchronically and diachronically, research needs to broaden its perspective.

Most interpretations of cave use in the Aegean are characterized by an approach which is related either to their marginal environmental attributes or to their character as places of cult practices, especially in Minoan Crete and during Classical times (see for example, Faure 1964; Tyree 1974; Rutkowski 1986; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Jones 1999). Cave studies have mainly focused on the establishment of chronosequences and the identification of occupation phases or use. Although this aspect of cave research is of crucial importance for the documentation of the historical context, it should be considered as a mere instrument for further exploration of the significance of these sites. There is no systematic approach to the character of cave uses within a wider perspective of ancient landscapes or to their specific role concerning activities that take place outside the typical habitation/settlement sites. Such approaches need to be detached from functionalist models of human behavior. For instance, in the case of the Final Neolithic, it could be considered inadequate to interpret intensity in the use of caves and generally highland locations only through specialized economic practices (e.g. transhumant economy; see for example, Sherratt 1981; Cherry 1988; Greenfield 1988; Halstead 1996a, 1996b; Douzougli and Zachos 2002; Greenfield and Fowler 2003). Taking into consideration all available evidence, it can be concluded that changes are much more extensive and characterize all aspects of material culture as well as landscape significance, role, and meaning (Mavridis 2006).

It is essential to set the parameters and describe the meaning of a “place” or “locale” as part of a region's wider landscape. Therefore, according to Julian Thomas, it is the human factor that always needs to be contextualized, since the material world is not static but changing and negotiated in the performance of social life (Thomas 1996, 32). There are no universal notions of space (Tilley 1994, 11, also Connerton 1989, 54, 58) and it is the specific context, time, place, and historical conditions that constitute the crucial parameters for understanding the formation of space (Bender 1993, 1). Mountains, the sea, rivers, springs, caves, and other natural formations acquire specific powers and special significance, and their meaning is however neither pregiven nor universal [for the ancient Greek perception of landscape, see Buxton 1994, 90-113 (mountains: 81-96; the sea: 97-104; caves: 104-9; springs: 109-13].

Natural locations and landscapes are transformed by man into cultural constructs, shaped by myth and tradition, and, therefore, invested with social meaning and significance. Social relations can be studied thorough comprehension of the experiential space (Figs. 5,6) in opposition to the Cartesian space (Brück and Goodman 1999, 7-9). In this respect, caves and other natural sites are not different from any other monuments or man built environments (Barnatt and Edmonds 2002). Such an approach of the meaning of space is usually ignored, as the relationship between people and landscape is commonly influenced by positivist views: sites are mapped and measured as mere dots, while other qualities of space remain completely untouched (Tilley 1994; Brück and Goodman 1999, 7-8, see also Ucko and Layton 1999, 2, 108; Kuna 1991, 331). Traditional approaches regard landscape in terms of demography, social

Particular topographic features (Figs. 7.8) are critical for the establishment of social identities, as natural topography is embedded with meaning and significance. Caves cannot but be considered as such. In order to understand the significance of caves and other natural locations, the study of artifacts deposited in their interior is of crucial importance: locales and artifacts interact. In this way, the presence of specific artifact categories, the relevance between various artifacts, their specific context 2

STABLE SPACES – CHANGING PERCEPTION: CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE and the manner of their deposition, all manifest social action, and provide the specific character of an archaeological context. The contextual relations of finds as well as their fragmentation patterns, preserved parts etc. are generally considered as secondary in the approach of a specific context's meaning. The investigation of such locales' way of creation can provide information not easily approached through other types of sites. It is important to note that, as architecture is a means of structuring relations between people and their environment, in the case of caves, it is the character of deposition and the special features of artifacts that play the analogous role. Particularly since caves are the ambiguous limits between the world of the living and the world of the dead - light and darkness - their specific significance needs to be clarified by actions and accompanied by artifacts with special connotations.

Even caves which have been used for similar purposes by groups, who share the same habitat and have identical modes of subsistence, are characterized by variability in the use of space (Galanidou 2000, 243-244). A fundamental question of landscape perception by hunter gatherer societies is related to the extent in which it was socialized or brought to the human sphere (Head 1994, 172). During the Early and Middle Neolithic periods, caves in use, as well as open settlements are usually attested in lowlands near water sources (contrary to later phases, see Mari 2001 for further refererences). Exceptions to these patterns always exist and indicating that the criteria for using an underground space vary. Important new evidence has been into existence concerning the significance of caves in the Aegean Late Neolithic I and II. Some scholars believe that there is need for a general reassessment of the role of caves in Neolithic Greece, since it seems that some of them could have hosted ritual events or other kinds of social and symbolic significance (Stratouli 2005, 113).

Finally, phenomenological approaches suggest that the specific conditions of perceiving any space can be reconstructed through direct experience (Fig. 9) (Tilley 1994, for caves see Roe 2000). Changing Perceptions: Caves Through Time StoneAge

A symbolic behavior has been recognized in caves such as Skoteini Cave at Tharrounia in Euboea, Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia, and Cave of Cyclops on Gioura in the north Sporades (Katsarou-Tzeveleki and Sampson in this volume). In this case the fine ware pottery was found inside a pond deep into the cave, a depositing spot with symbolic connotations, while the number of figurines found in the Sarakenos Cave, together with other evidence, represent a unique case for the Greek Neolithic period. This can be paralleled in importance only with the finds from the prehistoric settlement of Strofilas on Andros (Televantou 2006).

Caves and rockshelters have provided some of the most important evidence for the earliest inhabitants of the Aegean at sites such as Petralona Cave in Chalchidiki (for references, see Papadea in this volume), Klithi Rockshelter and Kastritsa Cave in Epirus (Galanidou 1997, for references, see Papadea in this volume), the Theopetra Cave in Thessaly (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2006), the Franchthi Cave in the Argolid (Jacobsen 1976; 1981; Perlès 1999), Kalamakia Cave (Darlas and de Lumley 1999; Darlas 2002) and the Lakonis Cave in Lakonia (Panagopoulou et al. 2002-2004), Kleisoura in the Argolid (Koumouzelis et al. 2001a, b; 2003; Karkanas et al. 2004), and recently the Anonymous Cave of Schisto in Attika, where material dating to the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene has been attested (Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2007-2008; Mavridis et al. 2012; Mavridis et al in this volume). Significant transitional phases such as that of Neanderthals to modern humans and from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic have been attested to some of these above mentioned sites (Harvati, Panagopoulou and Karkanas 2003, for the transition to the Neolithic, see discussion in Kotsakis 2003). The Mesolithic period has also been extensively identified in caves and the general notion about the scarcity of this phase in the Aegean needs to be re-evaluated (see Sampson 1998; 2006; (ed.) 2008b; Galanidou and Perlès 2003; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2003; Perlès 2003; Koumouzelis, Kozlowski and Ginter 2003; Panagopoulou et al. 2005; Runnels et al. 2005, Runnels 2009).

In the so-called Drakaina Cave in Kefalonia, apart from some exceptional portable items, permanent floors were identified as comprising a context of specific significance (Stratouli 2005, 125-126). Furthermore, at the Leontari Cave (the Lion’s Cave) on Hymettos Mountain (Karali, Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2005; 2006), it is not only the presence of artifacts with special connotations but also deposition and fragmentation patterns that indicate a particular behavior related to the cave. During the Late Neolithic I and II there are some common characteristics encountered in caves. Their entrances are usually small and hidden (Fig. 10), they are close to water sources and provide the possibility for wide observation of the surrounding areas (Fig. 11). Traces of activities are often visible near caves used during this period, where typical examples are the Skoteini Cave at Tharrounia in Euboea (Sampson 1993) and the Leontari Cave (the Lion’s Cave) on Hymettos Mountain, in the wider area of which other caves seem to have been used too. Some constructions have been found inside or are related to the caves such as floors, wells, walls etc. [among many examples, see the Alepotrypa Cave in the Peloponnese (Papathanasopoulos 1996a), the

Ethnographic approaches have shown that there is no universal pattern that can be applied in relation to the use of the cave's space before the Neolithic. The variability observed depends on how occupants perceive and experience space, as well as on social composition and identity of the occupants (Galanidou 2000, 243-244). 3

FANIS MAVRIDIS, JESPER TAE JENSEN AND LINA KORMAZOPOULOU Kitsos Cave in Attika (Lambert 1981), and the Drakaina Cave in Kefalonia (Stratouli 2005)].

Neolithic I-II, Late Helladic III, Classical and Late Roman (Wickens 1986, 108).

The Late Neolithic I and II is considered as a period during which caves were being extensively used. It has been suggested that in the Peloponnese there was a shift in percentage from 15-20% of cave use in the Early and Middle Neolithic to 56% during the Late Neolithic I and 42% in the Late Neolithic Ib-II periods, while during the Bronze Age I and II phases the relevant values fall to 1 and 2% respectively (Diamant 1974). Concerning the Late Neolithic I and II phases, this phenomenon has been attributed by certain scholars to specialized economic practices (e.g. specialized exploitation of animal products, transhumant economy, see for example, Sampson 1993; Douzougli and Zachos 2002). It seems, however, that this change in settlement patterns is part of a wider transformation in the socioeconomic sphere of these periods. These changes can be observed in the use and meaning of material culture and in the significance of landscape, where a phase of colonization of marginal environments is observed, a further expansion to upland landscapes as well as to seascapes (Mavridis 2006; 2007 [2009]). It is also a period when caves, even in arid or semi arid regions such as Lakonia, were used as parts of wider settlement systems (Kontaxi, Kotjambopoulou and Stravopodi 1989). Some caves are considered as upland, even though they do not lie so far away from the coast (Fig. 12). What seems to be changing then is that, in opposition to earlier phases, the agrios becomes important again in relation to the domus (for the earlier phases of the Neolithic, see Hodder 1990).

Bronze Age The use of caves in the Early and Middle Bronze Age is sparse and limited evidence is available at least for Mainland Greece. Pottery dating to the Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Ages derives from the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Cave of the Nymph Koroneia), as has been demonstrated by Vivi Vasilopoulou (this volume). Pottery of the Early Bronze Age has also been found in the Anonymous Cave of Schisto, Attika (Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2007-2008; Μavridis et al. in this volume; 2012). Moreover, the excavation of the Cave in Perachora that was used as a long-term ossuary presents a unique case from the Greek Mainland. In the vicinity of the cave lies the well-known settlement of Lake Vouliagmeni; however, such burial caves are known mainly from Crete (Faure 1964, 66-69), while the burials in the Cyclades and Mainland Greece are usually met in artificial cavities (Koumouzelis 1996, 229). Another interesting case under excavation is the Hagia Triada Cave in Karystos, southern Euboea, where burials and Early Bronze Age finds have been identified (Mavridis and Tankosic 2009a; 2009b; 2009c.). Recent surveys and excavations in Lakonia, Messenia and other regions have produced important new evidence from caves used during the Early, Middle and later phases of the Bronze Age (Efstathiou 2009, 5-20). The Mycenaean period is represented by at least 37 caves bearing traces of use, while new cases are continually brought to light from field explorations of the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece.

The acceptance by scholars that the so-called Final Neolithic is generally a period characterized by cave use is rather illusionary. That is because the term Final Neolithic, ranging from about 4500 to 3200 B.C. includes different phases and traditions. During the 4th millennium cave use is under represented, while it is during the 5 th millennium that cave use is mainly attested (Sampson, Facorellis and Maniatis 1999; Mavridis 2006 where detailed discussion and further references concerning terminology, chronology etc., see also Stratouli, Facorellis and Maniatis 1999). Therefore a closer look indicates that only particular phases are characterized by the widespread use of caves and not every single tradition included in the term Final Neolithic.

The Peristeria Cave on Salamis is an almost unique case beyond those from Crete. Burials were associated there with numerous grave offerings (for example weapons) indicating that important people were buried inside the cave (Lolos 2000, 29-32; Vasiliou 2000, 34). Isolated burials are reported from the Cave of Lakes, Kastria, Kalavryta (Sampson 1997, 337-40), while some finds indicate a possible cult activity practiced into some caves such as that of Panormos Cave in the town of Ithaka (Benton 1938/39). Also, a figurine of Ψ-shape comes from the Cave of Nestor at Voidokilia in the Peloponnese, as is the case for the Skoteini Cave at Tharrounia in Euboea (Vasiliou 2000, 34). These Mycenaean finds belong, in most of the cases, to the Late Helladic III period (Katsarou 1993, 314). A periodic cult use has been considered possible for the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien) in Delphi (Lerat 1984). Another wellknown use of caves in the Mycenaean period is attested in the Klepsydra Cave (Klepsydra Spring) on Akropolis, which was mainly used for water (Travlos 1971, 323-331; Iakovidis 1973, 129-131, for the search of water around the area of the Klepsydra during the Bronze Age, see Hurwit 1999, for the Klepsydra in the Classical period, see Camp 2001, 70-71).

Apart from the evidence deriving from the excavation of specific sites, this picture seems to be confirmed by the exploration of many caves in Attika, as it is demonstrated by Jere Wickens (1986). It has been identified that increase in cave use begins in the Middle/Late Neolithic, while a more limited use continues into the Early Bronze Age I and evidence is sparse between the Early Bronze Age II and the Late Helladic II; a new increase is identified during the Late Helladic III. There is also a minimal use during the Geometric period, while some continuity is attested between the Archaic and Classical periods (Wickens 1986, 101-2). Therefore, four major periods of increase in cave use are attested: Late

4

STABLE SPACES – CHANGING PERCEPTION: CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE A unique occupation from the Late Neolithic to the Mycenaean period is attested at the Vathy Cave on Kalymnos. Unfortunately, documentation is very poor since excavations took place in the early 1920’s. However, recent publication of the material will enrich our knowledge about cave use in the Aegean. This cave is situated 12 m ASL (above sea level), and it can only be reached by sea (Fig. 12). In relation to the later phases of the Bronze Age, material dated to the Middle Bronze Age, Late Minoan I as well as to the Mycenaean period, was also identified (Benzi 1993). The transition from the Minoan to the Mycenaean phase is not clear, and it seems that apart from a few sherds, Minoan pottery dates no earlier than the Late Minoan IB, while the Mycenean use characterizes (as was the case for Mainland Greece) the Late Helladic III phase (Benzi 1993, 281). A cult use is considered possible for the Minoan phase, but no such evidence exists for the Mycenaean period (Benzi 1993, 287). Fine imported Minoan pottery, a stone vase, and three rhyta characterize cult contexts (Benzi 1993, 281), as well as a bronze statue of a typical Minoan worshipper, indicating cult activity, also attested in open air sites influenced by Minoan Crete (Marketou 2000).

The variety of offerings discovered in these caves, some of which are imports from several Mediterranean regions, indicates their importance for Cretan cult practices (Stampolidis and Kotsonas this volume). Apart from the caves associated with the birth of Zeus, another mythical cave is that of Eileithyia (see Platon in this volume with further references). Other caves were dedicated to Demeter, Rea, Pan and the Nymphs, the Nereids, Titans, Cyclops, Kouretes, Dactyloi, Hermes, and Apollo, to mention just a few of the many deities, who received worship in cave sites. Archaic And Classical Periods In The Greek Mainland In the Greek Mainland, from the 6th century B.C. onwards, a great number of caves were used for the worship of the chthonian aspect of several deities (Wickens 1986, 177-178; Larson 2001, 227; SourvinouInwood 1988, 116-7). Due to their natural characteristics many caves were considered as places where one could descend down into the deep void of darkness. In this respect, they represented a perfect natural setting for an entrance or transit area from the world of the living to the mysterious and dangerous Underworld (for other entrances to Hades such as the cavities in the volcanic landscape of Sicily, see Kingsley 1995, 73-4, 134, 138, 240, 252-253, 282; also Peter Kingsley's fascinating and very convincing discussion of how the Sicilian geography influenced the writings of Empedokles and his understanding of Hades).

Cretan Caves In Crete, caves have been rather extensively used since the Neolithic period. The character of use of Cretan caves before the Bronze Age is not certain (see L. Platon’s contribution), and there is yet no definite evidence for continuity of symbolic use before and after the Bronze Age, even if traces of both these periods have been attested in several cases (see the contribution in this volume by Faro, Platon and Tyree). Burials are also quite common in Cretan caves.

According to ancient literature, the Underworld with its ruler Hades - sometimes called Pluto – and his queen Persephone, is often accessed through caves. It was into a cave that the Lake Styx was formed and where the gods swore their oaths. As a chthonian deity, Hermes accompanied the dead to the Underworld as their psychopompos, and was also responsible for the offerings of their relatives and making sure that their deceased family member would properly reach the Land of the Dead (Hdt. 5.92; see also Burkert 1983, 196; Simon 1996).

In Crete, the study of caves follows the history of the ideological formation of Greek prehistoric archaeology.As it has been pointed out by Richard Bradley (Bradley 2000), the earliest explorations of Cretan caves aimed at the discovery of valuable objects, the identification of sites mentioned by ancient authors, and especially the location of the tomb of Zeus (for references, see bibliography in the contribution in this volume by Platon, Faro, Tyree, and Stampolidis and Kotsonas). With the progress of research the effort was concentrated on establishing criteria for the identification of cult places (Faure 1964; Tyree 1974; Rutkowski 1986; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Jones 1999). Contributions in this volume by Elissa Zoe Faro, Lefteris Platon, Nikolaos Stampolidis and Antonis Kotsonas and Loeta Tyree give a good account, not only of the history of research, but also of the new evidence added to Minoan archaeology by cave studies.

The episode of the descent into the Underworld is called katabasis (see Jakobsen 2002, 12, no 17; Empedokles talks of an actual katabasis, see Kingsley 1995, 41). Among the numerous relevant instances described in ancient literature, the most famous katabasis is, of course, the journey of Orpheus in search of his beloved dead wife, Eurydike. According to some ancient sources, Orpheaus’ descended to Hades from Tainaron at the south end of Mani Peninsula, Peloponnese (Simon 1996, 82; for other entrances to the underworld, see Giannoulidou 1978). However, this sanctuary was not dedicated to Hades but to his brother Poseidon chthonios. During Antiquity this place was considered as one of the most important gateways to Hades and functioned as a necromanteion or a psychopompeion. Other authors claim that Orpheaus’ katabasis took place at Aornos in Thesprotia, where the famous necromanteion of Epheira

Cult in Cretan caves lasted from about the end of the 3rd millennium down to the 4th century A.D. with different degree of intensity. Beyond prehistory, a peak in cave use is also attested in the Geometric, Archaic and Roman periods (see Stampolidis and Kotsonas this volume).

5

FANIS MAVRIDIS, JESPER TAE JENSEN AND LINA KORMAZOPOULOU is located (for the Trophonius of Leivadia, see Cosmopoulos, ed. 2003).

Caves were also believed to be the place of origin of mythical kings and heroes. It is characteristic that the Peristeria Cave on Salamis was considered as the sacred place of origin of the first mythical king of the island (Mari 2001, 187), who is depicted as half human and half snake (Μari 2001, 187). Such figures were considered as guardians of important trees, springs, ancient temples, just to name a few site types indicating a whole symbolic code related to the physical aspects of landscape (Mari 2001, 187). Pausanias provides some very interesting information about the meaning of landscape in ancient Greece. Promontories, mountains, caves, trees, lakes, rivers, springs and the sea were assumed to be sacred (Bradley 2000, 20).

In Eleusis lies another gateway to the Underworld, the Ploutoneion (Larson 2001, 227). It was built in a small cave near the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore (for a new and much more convincing reading of the church father Asterios, who is our main source for a katabasis as a cultic ritual during the Eleusenian Mysteries, see Jakobsen 2002, especially 4-12), thus marking out the exact place where Hades abducted Kore while picking flowers. She would then be made Queen of the Underworld with the name Persephone (For the myth, see Hom .Hymn Dem). Apart from the chthonian gods, the Nymphs, protectors of pregnant women (terracotta statuettes depicting pregnant women were found in the Pitsa Cave near Sykion, famous for the four Archaic painted wooden pinakes that were found in 1934, see Larson 2001, 229; also Vasilopoulou's contribution in this volume), were the most common deities worshipped in caves, often followed by Hermes or Pan, the god of shepherds (Edwards 1985; Larson 2001, 226-58). It was not until the 5th century B.C. that the worship of Pan and the Nymphs (Fig. 13) was widely spread. However, the general assumption that the cult of Pan spread rapidly from Arkadia to Attika during the 5 th century B.C. might not be a valid statement anymore, since no cave dedicated to Pan alone in either Arkadia or Attika has ever been found. He is only worshipped together with the Nymphs and they seem to be the main deities of worship (see Parker 1996, 165; Borgeaud 1988, 4, 51, no 54; Zampiti this volume). Many caves dedicated to them have been identified in Attika (Wickens 1986, 171-172), where the cult was introduced after the battle of Marathon in 490 B.C., since it was believed by the Athenians that Pan helped the Greeks win the war over the Persians (Garland 1992, 47-63; Parker's 1996, 163-8; Larson 2001, 97). Pan came from the wild mountains of Arkadia, and this is the main reason why he was worshipped inside caves. The worship of Pan and the Nymphs reached its peak during the 4th century B.C.. This is also reflected in the votive reliefs, where the earliest, the Archandros relief found at the south slope of the Athenian Akropolis, can be dated to 410-400 B.C. (Edwards 1985, 2, 293-303, no 1; Larson 2001, 130, fig. 4.2, also Borgeaud 1988; Feubel 1935; Larson 2001, 25867).

All this mythical imagery related to caves is depicted in art with special reference to the gods Zeus and Hermes, who were born and raised in caves, and also to Hades, god of the Underworld. The adventures of Odysseus and his companions, as well as the representations of heroes such as Achilles and Philoktetes are also common themes (for an account of the representation of gods and heroes on Attic red and black figure vases, see Boardman 1980, 252-78; 1985, 257-71, also Sporn in this volume). The Underworld or the mythical figures and gods related to it are not very common (see Boardman 1980, 278, e.g. figs. 198, 225). In cave shrines of the Classical period terracotta figurine types - male or female, standing or seated, dancers, protomes, small birds, animals, fruits, sphinxes, relief pinakes etc. -as well as decorated and plain pottery of various shapes - such as loutrophoroi, kotylai, pyxides, lekanides, skyphoi, lekythoi, krateriskoi, oinochoae, chalices, amphoras, phialae, arybaloi and craters - are the most widely represented categories of finds (Wickens 1986, 171). Other artifacts including various types of lamps, jewellery, marble reliefs, astragaloi and other small objects are also found in cave shrines. In many cases niches were cut in the cave walls, inside or at front of the caves or at the sides of their entrances used to insert votive offerings and/or inscriptions. Among the most outstanding examples is the cave shrine of Archedamos or Nympholeptos in Vari also called Nympholeptou Vari Cave (the Pan Cave at Vari), Attika, situated at the south end of Hymettos Mountain. The cave is unique for its rock cut decoration with votive reliefs and its rock cut stairs, made during the 5th century B.C.. (Thallon 1903; Weller 1903; Travlos 1988, 446-466; Parker 1996, 165; Larson 2001, 242-243, figs. 5.8-5.9; Schörner and Göette 2004.). The Chrysospilia Cave on Pholegandros is unmatched for the numerous votive inscriptions of adolescents written on its walls in the form of graffiti, dating mainly to the 4th century B.C.. Aspects of a phallic cult have also been identified there (Vasilopoulou 1996, 16-17; Μarthari 2005, 303). The existence of an immense number of astragaloi in caves like the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien) in Delphi and the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Cave of the Nymph Koroneia) in Boeotia seem to be associated with the art of divination (Amandry 1984). A natural prominence of

Moreover, Cyclops are presented in the Odyssey as living in caves without obeying any law, representing thus an early stage in the human history; therefore the cult of their father, Poseidon, is considered an early phenomenon (Simon 1996). Caves could also be used as burial places for mythological heroes or heroines. The best example is the possible tomb or cenotaph of Iphigeneia at Brauron in an area within the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia where structures were built in a cave with a small temple at its entrance (Hollingshead 1985, also Wickens 1986, 167; Larson 2001, 227). 6

STABLE SPACES – CHANGING PERCEPTION: CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE bedrock, slightly worked, would serve as an altar in some cases, like the Paliambela Cave, Aetoloakarnanía, with ashes stuffed on it during use (Hatziotou and Kormazopoulou forthcoming).

the star sheds light to the darkness of the cave and the scene itself, whereas the dark background is there as a reminder of the future pain. In the Crucifixion scene the cave, bearing Adam’s scull, supports the cross and bears the promise of Resurrection. In the very scene of Resurrection Adam comes to life ascending from the dark mouth of Hades with the help of the risen Christ’s hand, marking the passage from darkness and death to light and salvation. In this sense the Christian cave is identified with the symbolic space of Revelation.

The discussion on the importance of underground spaces in Classical times may be considered rather limited since it is impossible to include here all aspects of cultic practices, beliefs and customs related to caves. Christian Use Of Caves

Caves were also included in a variety of scenes from the lives of saints, ascetes and hermits living in them. The most prominent being St. John the Theologian, who was inspired in the writing of the Apocalypse in a cave on Patmos now called Cave of the Revelation.

Following a long period of poor archaeological evidence from cave contexts, which lasted from the Hellenistic period to the 3rd century A.D., the Late Roman/Early Byzantine phases are characterized by a more intensive cave use, probably the result of considerable population increase in the countryside and changes in the pattern of land use. In the 5th century A.D., some old cave shrines showed clues of revival of their previous antique worship, possibly matching the efforts of the emperor Julian to support the reclining ancient religion. In many other caves the Christian use was introduced by converting old pagan cave shrines into Christian ones [sacred caves on the foot of Akropolis, Lychnospilia on Parnes (the Lamp Cave) in Attika, and caves on Crete,see Wickens 1986; Faure 1964].

Throughout this period caves never ceased to be used for purely practical reasons. Apart from their use by farmers and shepherds, who visited them for their water sources, housed their flocks or conserved their dairy products in them, caves served as refuges for local populations in times of invasion or war (e.g. Andritsa Cave-refuge, Argolid, Kornos Cave, Cyprus) (Kormazopoulou and Hatzilazarou 2005). Coastal caves were also used as fortified shelters against pirates' raids (caves on the cliffs of the Mani Peninsula, Peloponnese).

During the following Byzantine phases, when monastic life became a widespread trend, many caves were fashioned into shelters for dwelling and prayer of monks and hermits. Such hermitages often grew into whole monasteries (Filosophou Monastery in Arkadia, Monastery of Mega Spileon at Kalavryta, Monastery of Ypapandi, Meteora) or were turned into chapels with fresco decoration on their walls (Daveli Cave, Attika, Hagia Sophia of Mylopotamos, Kythera, Cave of the Revelation, Patmos). In many cases entire areas, usually mountainous, became centers of monastic life, gathering monks from around the Empire (such areas are known in the Peloponnese, Thessaly, Athos, Aetolia etc.) (Lambropoulou 1994). Due to conditions of danger, several caves were reinforced with fortification walls (Monastery of Avgo, Argolid, Hagios Nikolas of Varassova, Aetolia, Hagia Marina in Langada, Messenia). Special local and historical conditions occurring in some parts of the Byzantine world underlie the creation of vast communities of rock cut dwellings or artificial caves, which were used over the centuries either as places of worship and hermitage or as houses or both (Caves of Kappadokia in Turkey, Caves of Matera in southeastern Italy) (G.de Jerfanion 1925; La Scaletta 1966; Rodley 1985).

By this brief account of cave use in the Aegean and the surrounding areas it is suggested that cave sites were important spots of activity, though only general aspects of their significance have been revealed so far. It is therefore of major importance to comprehend the historical context associated with their use and investigate their broader significance as particular landscapes integrated into human experience. Conclusion Scholars need always to be aware of the fact that during prehistory and the later periods an important array of activities took place beyond the typical habitation sites. In this respect, caves represent ideal cases for studying such activities. Furthermore, this is true because of the special character of underground spaces, where specific actions, not attested in other places, might possibly have occurred. Caves and other natural locations and spots do not exist independently, but are part of a wider system of movement of people in the landscape. The Kalythies Cave in Rhodes, for instance, strongly indicates that it formed part of a wider system of loci, since action was spread between different places in the landscape. Animal bones and other finds from this cave indicate that hunting and gathering activities, butchering processes, and temporary burials relate the Kalythies Cave to other locations (Halstead and Jones 1987, 139). Sites are created by varied experiences and perceptions which compose the variability observed in the archaeological record.

The ancient symbolism of cave sites as places of birth and death, of interchange between darkness and light, continued into the Christian iconography in a different perspective. In Byzantine art caves are associated with the major scenes of Christ's life, the Nativity, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection in its Byzantine iconographic type, The Descent into Hades. The cave poses its dual meaning in all three scenes: in the Nativity 7

FANIS MAVRIDIS, JESPER TAE JENSEN AND LINA KORMAZOPOULOU Also repeated use is important, not only for open-air settlements (see e.g., tell settlements) but for other spaces as well. Such sites can be considered and studied as monuments. For the Aegean Neolithic, there is now evidence that a specific symbolic behavior is related to the creation of cave space (see for example KatsarouTzeveleki and Sampson this volume).

applicable. What structures space in these areas is a matter of definition. Functional interpretations have generally failed to demonstrate the specific uses of cave space. This is because space is ordered according to cultural meanings, depending on historical context, while interpretations need to be contextualized and set apart from cross cultural generalizations (Brück and Goodman 1999, 5).

It is difficult to comprehend the use of caves, especially in the Stone Age, since there can be no dichotomy between ritual and secular, while mobile lifestyles use different models of space and time. Movements are therefore dependent on particular cultural values.

Caves are usually studied without recording the topography of the areas which they make part of, and they are seldom taken into consideration when wider settlement patterns are studied (e.g. surveys).

This is apparent in the case of Cretan caves and even for later phases, since it is not easy to identify with certainty or distinguish between ritual offerings, domestic assemblages, etc. It is not possible to state why only a few of the thousands of caves existing on the island bear evidence of cult activities (Faro; Platon; Tyree in this volume). It is also a matter of investigation why certain caves, which seem to offer better living conditions, have not been used while others with worse conditions prevailing in them, preserve traces of repeated human activity.

The establishment of a biographical approach that would emphasize the changing history of these sites, the variation through time which is related to the changing perceptions of people, seems to be an appropriate way of analysis. It is through human action that landscapes are put in order, and forms of material culture are created (Gosden and Head 1994, 114). Caves should be considered an important element of ancient landscapes. They are one of those loci where social action takes place, and symbolic behavior and ideas about the world are expressed. A dynamic analysis needs therefore to be built in order to achieve an understanding of such places (Chapman 1997b, 2).

Caves represent cases where levels of analysis such as settlement, household or domestic unit are not easily

8

STABLE SPACES – CHANGING PERCEPTION: CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places, London/New York.

Bibliography Amandry, P. 1984. “Os et Coquilles,” in L’Antre Corycien II, P. Amandry ed., (BCH Suppl. 9), Paris, pp. 347-380.

Brück, J. and M. Goodman, eds. 1999. “Introduction to Making Places in the Prehistoric World,” in Making Places,” in Brück and Goodman, eds, 1999, pp. 1- 19.

Bailey, D. 1997. “Impermanence and Flux in the Landscape of Early Agricultural Southeastern Europe,” in Chapman and Dolukhanov, eds., 1997, pp. 41-58.

Burkert, W. 1983. Homo necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (translated by P. Bing), Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.

Bailey, D. 1999. “What is a Tell? Settlement in 5 th Millennium Bulgaria,” in Brück and Goodman, eds., 1999, pp. 94-111.

______.1992. Greek Religion (translated by J. Raffan), Oxford.

Brück, J., and M. Goodman, eds. 1999. Making Places in the Prehistoric World, London.

Buxton, R. 1994. Imaginary Greece: The Contexts of Mythology, Cambridge.

Bailey, G.N., ed. 1997a. Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece, (Vol 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, Cambridge.

Camp, J.M. 2001. The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven, London. Chapman, J. 1997a. “The Origins of Tells in Eastern Hungary,” in Neolithic Landscapes, P. Topping, ed., Oxford, pp. 139-176.

Bailey, G.N., ed. 1997b. Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece, (Vol. 2), Klithi in its Local and Regional Setting, Cambridge.

______.1997b. “Landscape in Flux and the Colonisation of Time,” in Chapman and Dolukhanov, eds., 1997, pp. 1-22.

Bailey, G.N., E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds. 1999. The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas (BSA Studies 3), London.

Chapman, J., and P. Dolukhanov, eds. 1997. Landscapes in Flux: Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity (Colloquia Pontica 3), Oxford.

Bailey, G.N., and N. Galanidou. 2009. “Caves, Palimpsests and Dwelling Spaces: Examples from the Upper Palaeolithic of Southeast Europe,” WA 41 (2), pp. 215-241.

Cherry, J.1981. “Pattern and Process in the Earliest Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands,” PPS 47, pp. 41-68.

Barnatt, J., and M. Edmonds. 2002. “Places Apart? Caves and Monuments in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain,” CAJ 12, pp. 113-129.

Connerton, P. 1989. How Societies Remember (Themes in the Social Sciences), Cambridge. Cosmopoulos, M.B, ed., 2003. Greek Mysteries. The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults, London.

Bender, B., ed. 1993. “Landscape: Meaning and Action,” in Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, B. Bender, ed., Providence,Oxford, pp. 1-17.

Darlas, A., and H. de Lumley. 1999. “Palaeolithic Research in Kalamakia Cave, Areopolis, Peloponnese,” in Bailey, Adam, Panagopoulou, Perlès, and Zachos, eds, 1999, pp. 293-302.

Benton, S. 1938/39. “The Excavation in Ithaca III. The Cave at Polis II,” BSA 39, pp. 1-51. Benzi, M. 1993. “The Late Bronze Age Pottery from the Vathy Cave, Kalymnos,” in Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 19391989, C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder, eds., Amsterdam, pp. 275-288.

Darlas, A. 2002. “Η Ανασκαφή του Παλαιολιθικού Σπηλαίου Καλαμάκια: Τα Νεότερα Δεδομένα,” in Πρακτικά Α΄ Τοπικού Συνεδρίου Λακωνικών Σπουδών, Athens, pp. 179-209.

Boardman, J. 1980. Αθηναϊκά Μελανόμορφα Αγγεία (translated by O. Hatjianastasiou), Athens.

Diamant, S. 1974. The Later Village Farming Stage in Southern Greece, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.

Boardman, J. 1985. Aθηναϊκά Ερυθρόμορφα Αγγεία (translated by E. Papoutsaki- Serbeti), Athens.

Douzougli, A., and K. Zachos. 2002. “L’Archéologie des Zones Montagneuses: Modèlles et Interconnexions dans le Nèolithique de l’Èpire et de l’Albanie Méridionale (BCH Suppl. 42), in L'Albanie dans l'Europe Prehistorique, G. Touchais and J. Renard, eds., Paris, pp. 111-143.

Borgeaud, Ph. 1988. The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece (translated by K. Atlass and J. Redfield), Chicago.

9

FANIS MAVRIDIS, JESPER TAE JENSEN AND LINA KORMAZOPOULOU

Ecole Française d'Athènes, ed. 1984. L’ Antre Corycien II (BCH Suppl. IX), Paris.

______.1996b. “Τhe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece: When, How, Who and What?,” in The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, D. Harris, ed., London, pp. 296-309.

Edwards, C.M. 1985. Greek Votive Reliefs to Pan and the Nymphs, Ph.D. diss., New York University, Institute of Fine Arts.

Halstead, P. and G. Jones. 1987. “Bioarchaeological Remains from Kalythies Cave, Rhodes,” in H Nεολιθική περίοδος στα Δωδεκάνησα, A. Σάμψων, ed., Athens, pp. 135-152.

Efstathiou, Y. 2009. “Archaeological Investigations in the Caves of Laconia,” in Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Modern Times (BSA Studies 16), W.G. Cavanagh, C. Gallou and M. Georgiadis, eds, London, pp. 5-20.

Harvati, K., E. Panagopoulou, and P. Karkanas. 2003. “First Neanderthal Remains from Greece: The Evidence from Lakonis,” JHE 45, pp. 465-473.

Evin, J., C. Oberlin, J.P. Daugas, and J.F.Salles, eds. 1999. Archéologie et 14C (Revue de l’Archéometrie Supplément 1999 et Société Préhistorique Française Mémoire 26), Lyon.

Hatziotou E. and L. Kormazopoulou. 2008. “Λατρευτικό Σπήλαιο στα Παλιάμπελα Βόνιτσας,” Paper read at the Symposium Η Πολιτιστική Κληρονομιά της Αιτωλοακαρνανίας. Προστασία και Ανάδειξη μέσα από τις Τελευταίες Έρευνες και τα Εκτελούμενα Έργα, September 26-28, Mesollogi.

Faure, P. 1964. Fonctions des Cavernes Crétoises, (École Française d'Athènes, Travaux et Mémoires 14), Paris. Feubel, R. 1935. Die attischen Nymphenreliefs und ihre Vorbilder, Heidelberg.

Head, L. 1994. “Landscapes Socialised by Fire: PostContact Changes in Aboriginal Fire Use in Northern Australia, and Implications for Prehistory,” Archaeology in Oceania 29, pp. 172-181.

Galanidou, N. 1997. Home is Where the Hearth Is: The Spatial Organisation of the Upper Palaeolithic Rockshelter Occupations at Klithi and Kastritsa in Northwest Greece (BAR-Int. S. 687), Oxford.

Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies, Oxford.

______2000. “Patterns in Caves: Foragers, Horticulturists and the Use of Space,” JAnthArch 19, pp. 243-275.

Hollinshead, M.B. 1985. “Against Iphigeneia’s Adyton in Three Mainland Temples,” AJA 89, pp. 419-440.

Galanidou, N., and C. Perlés, eds. 2003. The Greek Mesolithic:Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), London.

Hurwit, J.M. 1999. The Athenian Akropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge.

Garland, R.S.J. 1992. Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion, London.

Iakovidis, S. 1973. Aι Μυκηναϊκαί Ακροπόλεις, Athens. Jacobsen, T.W. 1976. “17000 Years Prehistory,” Sci Am 234 (6), pp. 76-87.

Giannoulidou, K.M. 1978. “Iστορικά Σπήλαια της Αρχαιότητας,” Platon 59-60, pp. 20-30.

of

Greek

________. 1981. “Franchthi Cave and the Beginning of Settled Village Life in Greece,” Hesperia 50, pp. 303319.

Gosden, C., and L. Head. 1994. “Landscape- A Usefully Ambiguous Concept,” Archaeology in Oceania 29, pp. 113-116.

Jakobsen, A.C. 2002. “Katabasis og Katabasion i de Eleusinske Mysterier – den Traditionelle Metodes Håndtering af den Religiøse Oplevelse,” Aigis 2 (2), pp. 1-21.

Greenfield, H.J. 1988. “The Origins of Wool and Milk Production in the Old World: A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Central Balkans,” CurrAnthr 4, pp. 573- 593.

Jerfanion, G. de, 1925. Une Nouvelle Province de l’Art Byzantin: Les Églises Rupestres de Cappadoce, Paris.

Greenfield, H.J. and K. Fowler. 2003. “Megalo Nisi Galanis and the Secondary Products Revolution in Macedonia,” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (BSA Studies 9), E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble, and P. Elefanti, eds, London, pp. 133-143.

Jones, D.W. 1999. Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete. A Comparison of Artifacts, Jonsered. Karali, L., F. Mavridis and L. Kormazopoulou. 2005. “Cultural Landscapes during the Late and Final Neolithic of the Aegean. A Case Study from Leontari Cave, Mt Hymettos, Athens, Greece,” Antiquity 79, 303. March 2005. http://antiquity.ac.uk/Proj. Gall/mavridis/index.

Halstead, P. 1996a. “Pastoralism or Household Herding? Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandry,” WA 28 (1), pp. 20-42. 10

STABLE SPACES – CHANGING PERCEPTION: CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE

Karali, L., F. Mavridis and L. Kormazopoulou. 2006. “Σπήλαιο Λεονταρίου Υμηττού Αττικής: Ένα Πετρώδες και Ορεινό Περιβάλλον. Προκαταρκτικά Στοιχεία για την Έρευνα των Ετών 2003-2005,” AAA 39, pp. 31-43.

Koumouzelis, M., J.K. Kozlowski and B. Ginter. 2003. “Mesolithic Finds from Cave 1 in the Kleisoura Gorge, Argolid,” in Galanidou and Perlés, eds., 2003, pp. 113122.

Karkanas, P., M. Koumouzeli, J. Kozlowski, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, E. Berna, and S. Creiner. 2004. “The Earliest Evidence for Clay Hearths: Aurigniacian Features in Kleisoura Cave 1, Southern Greece,” Antiquity 78 (301), pp. 513-525.

Kuna, M. 1991. “The Structuring of Prehistoric Landscapes,” Antiquity 65, pp. 332- 347. Kyparissi-Apostolika, N., ed., 2006. Σπήλαιο Θεόπετρας – Δώδεκα Xρόνια Aνασκαφών και Έρευνας 1987-1998, Αthens.

Katsarou, S. 1993. “Υστεροελλαδικά Eυρήματα από το Σπήλαιο Σκοτεινή,” in Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το Σπήλαιο, ο Οικισμός, το Νεκροταφείο, A. Σάμψων, ed., Athens, pp. 314-322.

Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. 2003. “The Mesolithic in Theopetra Cave: New Data on a Debated Period of Greek Prehistory,” in Galanidou and Perlés, eds., 2003, pp. 189198.

Kingsley, P. 1995. Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, Oxford, New York.

Lambert, N., ed. 1981. La Grotte Préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique):Missions 19681978:L’Occupation Néolithique: Les Vestiges des Temps Paléolithiques, de l’Antiquité et de l’ Histoire Rrécente, (École Française d’Athènes), Paris.

Knapp, A.B., and W. Ashmore. 1999. “Archaeological Landscapes:Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational,” in Archaeologies of Landscape, Contemporary Perspectives, W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp, eds., Oxford, pp. 1-30.

Lambropoulou, A., 1994. Ο Aσκητισμός στην Πελοπόννησο κατά τη Mέση Bυζαντινή Περίοδο, Αthens.

Kontaxi, C., E. Kotjabopoulou and E. Stravopodi. 1995. “Προκαταρκτική Έκθεση Ανασκαφών στην Α΄ Κουβελέϊκη Σπηλιά Αλεποχωρίου Λακωνίας,” ΑΑΑ 12 [1989], pp. 21-30.

Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore, Oxford. La Scaletta, 1966. Le Chiese Rupestri di Matera con una Premesse di Mario Salmi, Rome.

Kormazopoulou, L. and D. Hatzilazarou, eds. 2005. Andritsa Cave - Fateful Refuge. Exhibition Catalogue September 26, - November, 15, 2005, Athens.

Lerat, L. 1984. “Époque Mycénienne,” in École Française d'Athènes, ed., 1984, pp. 1-25.

Kotsakis, K., 1999. “What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic, in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology), P. Halstead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 66-76.

Lloyd-Jones, H. 1983. “Artemis and Iphigeneia,” JHS 103, pp. 87-102. Lolos, Y. 2000. “To Σπήλαιο του Ευρυπίδη: Tαφικό Μνημείο της Μυκηναίκής Εποχής,” Εptakyklos 15, pp. 29-32.

Kotsakis, K., 2003. “From the Neolithic Side: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Interface in Greece,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 217-221.

Mari, A. 2001. H Nεολιθική Εποχή στο Σαρωνικό, Ph.D. diss., University of Thessaloniki.

Koumouzelis, M. 1996. “Πρωτοελλαδικό Oστεοφυλάκιο στο Σπήλαιο Λίμνης Βουλιαγμένης Περαχώρας,” ΑrchDelt 44-46, (Μeletes) [1989-1991], pp. 223-238.

Marketou, T. 2000. Tαξίδι στην Προϊστορική Κάλυμνο, Athens.

Koumouzelis, M., B. Ginter, J.K. Kozlowski, M. Pawlikowski, O. Bar-Yosef, R.M. Albert, M. LitynskaZajac, E. Stworzewicz, P. Wojtal, G. Lipecki, T. Tomek, Z.M. Bochenski, and A. Pazdur. 2001a. “The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: The Excavations at Kleisoura Cave,” JAS 28, pp. 515-539.

Μarthari, Μ., 2005. “Σίκινος, Φολέγανδρος,” in Aρχαιολογία, Νησιά του Αιγαίου, A. Bλαχόπουλος, ed., Athens, pp. 302-330. Mavridis, F. 2006a. “The Neolithic Site of Pangali, Mt Varassova, Aetolias,” in Chalkis Aetolias I. The Prehistoric Phase (Part 2), The Neolithic Remains at Pangali, (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 7), S. Dietz and I. Moschos, eds, Athens, pp. 117-39, 222-9.

Koumouzelis, M., J. Kozlowski, C. Escutenaire, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, H. Valladas, N. Tisnerat-Laborde, P. Wojtal, and B. Ginter. 2001b. “La Fin du Paléolithique Moyen et le Début du Paléolithique Supérieure en Grèce: La Séquence de la Grotte 1 de Kleisoura,” L’Anthropologie 105, pp. 469-504.

Μavridis, F. 2006b. “Ανώνυμο Σπήλαιο Σχιστού Κερατσινίου: H Περίπτωση ενός Τοπίου του ‘Κάτω 11

FANIS MAVRIDIS, JESPER TAE JENSEN AND LINA KORMAZOPOULOU Κόσμου’ στην Προϊστορία της Αττικής. Προκαταρκτικά Στοιχεία,” Paper read at the Β' Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας του Αργοσαρωνικού, 30 Ιουνίου-1 Ιουλίου, Μethana.

“Επιφανειακή Έρευνα για τον Εντοπισμό Μεσολιθικών Θέσεων στην Περιοχή Κάντια Αργολίδας,” ΑΑΑ 35-38 [2002-2005], pp. 23-36. Papathanasopoulos, G. 1996a. “To Σπήλαιο Αλεπότρυπα στο Δυρό Μάνης,” in Νεολιθικός πολιτισμός στην Ελλάδα, Γ. Παπαθανασόπουλος, ed., Athens, pp. 80-84.

Mavridis, F. 2007. Ένα Aρχιπέλαγος Πολιτισμών: Η Νεολιθική Περίοδος στα Νησιά του Αιγαίου. Αρχαιολογικά Δεδομένα, Θεωρία, Ερμηνεία, Ph.D. diss., University of Athens (National Documentation Center 2009).

Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford.

Mavridis, F. 2008. “Νησιωτική Αρχαιολογία: Ένας Aνεξάρτητος Tομέας Έρευνας στην Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου; Προβλήματα Μεθοδολογίας, Ερμηνείας και Εναλλακτικές Προσεγγίσεις,” Paper read at the 2nd International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology, 4-7 December , Volos.

Perlès, C., 1999. “Long-term Perspectives on the Occupation of the Franchthi Cave: Continuity and Discontinuity,” in Bailey, Adam, Panagopoulou, Perlès, and Zachos, eds., 1999, pp. 311-318. Perlès, C., 2003. “The Mesolithic at Francthi: An Overview of the Data and Problems,” in Galanidou and Perlés, eds., 2003, pp. 79-88.

Mavridis, F. and L. Kormazopoulou 2007-2008. “Ανώνυμο Σπήλαιο Σχιστού Κερατσινίου. Η ανασκαφή των ετών 2006-7. Τα πρώτα στοιχεία της έρευνας,” ΑAA 40-41 [2009], pp. 13-23.

Rodley, L., 1985. Cave Monasteries of Byzantine Cappadocia, London.

Mavridis, F. 2010. “Ένα Aρχιπέλαγος Πολιτισμών. Η Νεολιθική Περίοδος στο Αιγαίο. Αρχαιολογικά Δεδομένα, Θεωρία, Ερμηνεία,”Αρχαιολογία, http://www.arxaiologia.gr/site/content.

Runnels, C, 2009. “Mesolithic Sites and Surveys in Greece: A Case Study from the Southern Argolid,” JMA 22 (1), pp. 57-73. Runnels, C.N., E. Panagopoulou, P. Murray, G. Tsartsidou, S. Allen, K. Mullen, and E. Tourloukis. 2005. “A Mesolithic Landscape in Greece: Testing a Site Location Model in the Argolid at Kandia,” JMA 18, pp. 259-285.

Mavridis, F.and Z. Tankosic 2009a. “The Hagia Triada Cave, Southern Euboea: Finds and Implications of the Earliest Human Habitation in the Area,” MAA 9 (2), pp. 47-59. Mavridis, F., and Z. Tankosic 2009b. “Η Θέση της Νότιας Εύβοιας στο Δίκτυο Επικοινωνιών της Νεολιθικής και της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Χαλκού: H Περίπτωση του Σπηλαίου Αγίας Τριάδας Καρύστου,” Paper read at the 1st International Symposium Styria Gaea, 3-5 July, Styra.

Roe, M., 2000. The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadows: How We Perceive and Represent Underground Spaces, CAPRA 2, http//capra.group.shef.ac.uk/2/roe.html. Rutkowski, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven.

Mavridis, F. and Z. Tankosic 2009 c. “The Hagia Triada Cave, Karystos, Southern Euboea: The 2007-2008 Excavation,” Paper read at the 3rd International Conference on Archaeological Research of Thessaly and Central Greece, 2006-2008, 12 – 15 March, Volos.

Rutkowski, B., and K. Nowicki. 1996. The Psychro Cave and Other Sacred Grottos in Crete, Warsaw. Samartzidou-Orkopoulou, S. 2005. “I Tell of a Cave . . .,” in Andritsa Cave - Fateful Refuge. Exhibition Catalogue September 26, - November, 15, 2005, Λ. Koρμαζοπούλου and Δ. Χατζηλαζάρου, eds., Athens, pp. 10-13.

Mavridis, F., N. Laskaris, A. Papadea, O. Apostolikas, K. Trantalidou, G. Kotzamani, P. Karkanas, Y. Maniatis, I. Liritzis, and L. Kormazopoulou. 2012. “Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini: Dating of Obsidian Samples Oriented from Late Pleistocene- Early Holocene Deposits with the SIMS-SS Method,” in 2nd ARCH RNT, Archaeological Research and New Technologies, N. Zαχαριάς, ed., Kalamata, pp. 121-131.

Strauss, L.G. 1997. “Convenient Cavities: Some Human Uses of Caves and Rockshelters,” in The Human Uses of Caves (BAR I.S. 667), C. Bonsall and R. Tolan-Smith, eds, Oxford, pp. 1-8. Sampson, A., ed. 1993. Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το Σπήλαιο, ο Οικισμός, το Νεκροταφείο, Athens.

Panagopoulou, E., P. Karkanas, G. Tsartsidou, E. Kotjabopoulou, K. Harvati, and M. Ntinou. 2002-2004. “Late Pleistocene Archaeological and Fossil Human Evidence from Lakonis Cave, Southern Greece,” JFA 29, pp. 323-349.

Sampson, Α. 1997. Το Σπήλαιο των Λιμνών στα Καστριά Καλαβρύτων, Athens. Sampson, A., Y. Facorellis and Y. Maniatis. 1999. “New Evidence for the Cave Occupation During the Late Neolithic Period in Greece,” in Archéologie et 14C (Actes

Panagopoulou, E., C.N. Runnels, G. Tsartsidou, P. Murray, J. Allen, K. Mullen, and E. Tourloukis. 2005. 12

STABLE SPACES – CHANGING PERCEPTION: CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE du 3ème Congrès International, Lyon, 6-10 Avril 1998, Revue de l’Archeometrie Supplément 1999 et Société Préhistorique Française Memoire 26), J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J.P. Daugas, and J.F.Salles, eds., Lyon, pp. 279-286.

l’Archeometrie Supplément 1999 et Société Préhistorique Française Memoire 26), J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J.P. Daugas and J.F.Salles, eds., pp. 273-278. Τelevantou, Chr., 2006. “Προϊστορική Άνδρος,” in Γενέθλιον, Αναμνηστικός Τόμος για τη Συμπλήρωση 20 χρόνων Λειτουργίας του Μουσείου Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης, N. Σταμπολίδης, ed., Athens, pp. 1-16.

Sampson, A., ed. 2006. H Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου. Παλαιολιθική, Μεσολιθική, Νεολιθική, Athens. Sampson, A. 1998. “The Neolithic and Mesolithic Occupation of the Cave of Cyclope, Gioura, Alonnesos, Greece,” BSA 93, pp. 1-22.

Thallon, I.C. 1903. “The Cave at Vari. III. Marble Reliefs,” AJA 7, pp. 301-319.

Sampson, A., ed. 2008. The Cave of Cyclops on the Island of Gioura, Greece. Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean Basin (Vol. Ι), Intrasite Analysis, Local Industries and Regional Site Distribution, (INSTAP Academic Press), Philadelpheia.

Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology, London, New York. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford. Travlos, J.N. 1971. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen, Tübingen.

Schörner, G., and H.R. Göette. 2004. Die Pan-Grotte von Vari (Schriften Zur Historischen Landeskunde Griechenlands 1), Mainz am Rhein.

Travlos, J.N. 1988. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika, Tübingen.

Sherratt, A., 1981. “Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution,” in Patterns of the Past, Studies in Honor of D. Clarke I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond, eds., Cambridge, pp. 261-305.

Tyree, L.E. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, Columbia.

Simon, E. 1996. Oι θεοί των Aρχαίων Ελλήνων (translated by Σ. Πινγιάτογλου), Thessaloniki.

Ucko, P.J. and R. Layton. 1999. Introduction to The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscapes: Shaping your Landscape, (One World Archaeology), P.J. Ucko and R. Layton, eds., London, New York, pp. 1-20.

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1988. Studies in Transitions: Aspects of the Arktia and Representation in Attic Iconography, Athens.

Girls’ Age

Vasiliou, Ε. 2000. “Xρήσεις Σπήλαίων στη Μυκηναϊκή Ελλάδα: Σύντομη Επισκόπηση,” Εptakyklos 15, pp. 3338.

Stratouli, G., 1998. “Η Αναγνώριση των Χρήσεων των Σπηλαίων στη Νεολιθική Ελλάδα: Εμπειρικές και Διεπιστημονικές Προσεγγίσεις,” in Πρακτικά του Συνεδρίου Άνθρωπος και Σπηλαιοπεριβάλλον, Αthens, pp. 59-62.

Vasilopoulou, V., 1996. “Η Χρυσοσπηλιά,” in Η Καθημερινή, Επτά Ημέρες, Φολέγανδρος (28 Ιουλίου), pp. 16-17.

Stratouli, G. 2005. “Symbolic Behaviour at Places of Social Activity Beyond the Domestic Area in the Ionia Neolithic,” DocPraeh 32, pp. 123-132.

Weller, C.H. 1903. “The Cave at Vari. I. Description, Account of Excavation and History,” AJA 7, pp. 263-288. Wickens, J.M. 1986. The Archaeology and History of Cave Use in Attika, Greece from Prehistoric through Late Roman Times, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, Indiana.

Stratouli, G., Y. Facorellis and Y. Maniatis. 1999. “Towards Understanding the Transition Between Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Ionian, Western Greece,” in Archéologie et 14C (Actes du 3ème congrès international, Lyon, 6-10 Avril 1998, Revue de

13

FANIS MAVRIDIS, JESPER TAE JENSEN AND LINA KORMAZOPOULOU

Figure 1. Underground spaces (Photos by F. Mavridis).

Figure 4. Anthropogenic deposits (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 2. Underground spaces (Photos by F. Mavridis).

Figure 5. Experiencing underground spaces (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 3. A rock shlelter in Aetoloakarnania (Photo by F. Mavridis).

14

STABLE SPACES – CHANGING PERCEPTION: CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE

Figure 6. Experiencing underground spaces (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 9. An underground space in Attika (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 7. Views of the surrounding area from the mountainous landscape of the Leontari Cave, Hymettos Mountain (Photos by F. Mavridis).

Figure 10. The entrance of the Leontari Cave, Attika with Late Neolithic I-II traces of use (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 8. Views of the surrounding area from the mountainous landscape of the Leontari Cave, Hymettos Mountain (Photos by F. Mavridis).

15

FANIS MAVRIDIS, JESPER TAE JENSEN AND LINA KORMAZOPOULOU

Figure 11. A Late Neolithic II site, Varassova Mountain, Aetoloakarnania (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 13. Leontari Cave, Hymettos Mountain. Finds of the Classical phase shrine (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 12. Vathy Cave, Kalymnos (Photo by F. Mavridis).

16

PART I: Science: Chronology, Palaeontology, Geology, Environment

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE the 1998 issue (Stuiver et al. 1998) and to 26 cal kyr BP in the 2004 issue. Today it is 50 cal kyr BP according to the latest issue IntCal09 published in 2009 (Reimer et al. 2009).

1 Radiocarbon Dates From Archaeological Sites InCaves and Rockshelters In Greece

The main purpose of this study is to present for the first time and all together the updated calibration results with the associated archaeological information of published radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in caves and rockshelters in Greece. In the future this information can be used as a comparison basis. This task was achieved by using the IntCal09 curve and only in one case of a sea shell sample (OxA-7470) from Zas cave on Naxos the Marine09 curve.

Yorgos Facorellis Introduction* During the last five decades, the archaeological research of the anthropogenic deposits in caves and rockshelters all over Greece has brought new evidence of their use to light and also proved that it was very frequent in many instances from the Palaeolithic period until today. In this paper, published radiocarbon ages from all these sites are presented together with all the available associated information for each sample. The conventional 14C ages cover all the time range of the radiocarbon dating method and they are uniformly calibrated and converted to calendar dates, wherever this is possible. The latest issues of the international calibration curves IntCal09 and Marine09 are used in this article.

Table 1.1 The results are sorted by the geographic coordinates of each site beginning from the north to the south of Greece and by age. In this table one can see the laboratory code, site name, geographic coordinates, sample collection date (wherever reported), description and type, submitter’s name, conventional and calibrated dates expressed in calendar years B.C. and in calibrated years BP within 1 (1σ) and 2 (2σ) standard deviations, probability 68.3% and 95.4% respectively, and finally, the corresponding reference of each sample. High standard deviations of the conventional 14C ages are mostly due to undersized amount of sample available (Reimer et al. 2004), although the accuracy of the method tends to increase through the years following the improvement of the sample preparation procedures and the counting equipment. The conventional 14C ages are calibrated with the aforementioned calibration curves using the OxCal v.4.2. software (Bronk Ramsey 2009). Calibrated date's upper limits marked with an asterisque (*) may extend out of the international calibration curve range and are denoted as 50,000 years. When the conventional 14C age inaccuracy of a sample is ≥ 50 years the corresponding calibrated dates are rounded to the closer decade.

As stated above, the archaeological research in caves and rockshelters all over Greece has been multiplied and coincided with the development of the radiocarbon dating method. Thus, apart from good stratigraphical records, we now possess series of published radiocarbon dates which help the archaeologists and other concerned researchers to re-evaluate the old theories about the reasons and time span of their use (Diamant 1974; Sampson et al. 1999). However, these 14C ages, which are published in different time periods, are not always directly comparable to each other due to the fact that the accuracy and reliability of the radiocarbon dating method has been increased considerably through the last years. Especially, in the early years of the method all conventional 14C ages were converted to calendar years by simply subtracting 1950 years resulting to considerable calendar age shifts (Theocharis 1973; Treuil 1983). The first international calibration curve appeared as late as in 1986 (Stuiver et al. 1986), which partly solved this source of inaccuracy and allowed the calibration of the conventional 14C ages back to 9150 cal BP (BP = Before Present, Present = 1950 A.D.) compared to the ca. 50 kyr BP age limit of this dating method. In consecutive issues of the international curve IntCal04, the calibrated age limit was more than doubled as it was pushed back to 22 cal kyr BP in the 1993 issue (Stuiver and Reimer 1993), to 24 cal kyr BP in

List Of Sites The samples originate from 29 caves and rockshelters in Greece covering the entire time span of the radiocarbon method. Figure 1.1 shows the geographic location of the archaeological sites. Figure 1.2 presents the age spans in calendar years BP of the sites in the order they appear in Table 1.1 based merely on the radiocarbon dated samples. Time gaps in the sequence of the radiocarbon dates of a site do not necessarily reflect an abandonment of the particular site during the corresponding periods, as it is not always evident that suitable material for 14C dating can be found from all the consecutive anthropogenic layers. It is worth noticing that in the case of many caves and rockshelters the archaeological evidence shows broader limits of their use. For more information concerning the human presence in each site through time one should refer to the relative publication of the results of the archaeological research.

*

The author would like to thank Dr Panagiotis Karkanas, geologist of the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs, Culture and Tourism for providing information on the radiocarbon dates of the Lakonis I Cave and the Kleisoura Cave and Assist. Prof. Nena Galanidou of the Department of History and Archaeology, School of Philosophy, University of Crete, for helpful comments and discussion.

19

YORGOS FACORELLIS  

 

Figures 1.3-1.23 show the probability distribution, within 1 (1σ) and 2 (2σ) standard deviations of the calendar dates of the samples from each site sorted by age, thus, without taking into account any localised chronostratigraphical particularities. Abbreviations: cal = calibrated, N. = north, NE = northeast, NW = northwest, S. = south, SW = southwest, E. = east, Lat. = latitude, Long. = longitude

 

1. Maara Cave, Drama (41 13΄ N. Lat., 23° 53΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.3) Reference: Trantalidou et al. 2005; 2007 2. Piges Koromilias Cave, Kastoria (40 32΄ N. Lat., 21 10΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.4) Reference: Trantalidou et al. 2010 3. Megalakkos Rockshelter, Epirus (39 58΄ N. Lat., 20 41΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.5) Reference: Hedges et al. 1990 4. Klithi Rockshelter, Pindus Mountains, Epirus (39 58΄ N. Lat., 20 41΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.5) Reference: Gillespie et al. 1985; Gowlett et al. 1986; Gowlett et al. 1986; Hedges et al. 1990 5. Boila Rockshelter, Konitsa Plain, Epirus, (39 58΄ N. Lat., 20 40΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.6) Reference: Gowlett et al. 1997 6. Grava Rockshelter, Corfu (39 29΄ N. Lat., 19° 53΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.6) Reference: Gowlett et al. 1997 7. Theopetra Cave, Kalambaka, Thessaly (39 41΄ N. Lat., 21° 41΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.7a, b, c) Reference: Karkanas and Kyparissi-Apostolika 1999; Facorellis et al. 2001; Karkanas 2001; Facorellis forthcoming 8. Kastritsa Rockshelter, Ioannina (39 38΄ N. Lat., 20° 55΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.8) Reference: Bailey et al. 1983; Bailey et al. 1986; Galanidou et al. 2000; Galanidou and Tzedakis 2001 9. Asprochaliko Rockshelter, Epirus (39 16΄ N. Lat., 20° 50΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.9) Reference: Bailey et al. 1983; Bailey et al. 1986 10. Cyclops Cave, Youra, N. Sporades (39 22´ N. Lat., 24 10´ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.10) Reference: Facorellis et al. 1998 11. Skotini Cave, Tharrounia, Euboea, (38 31´ N. Lat., 23 59´ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.11) Reference: Sampson 1993 12. Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), Parnassos, Delphi (38 29΄ N. Lat., 22 30΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.11) Reference: Delibrias et al. 1974 13. Sarakenos Cave, Akraiphnio, Boeotia (38 28´ N. Lat., 23 14´ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.12a, b) Reference: Sampson et al. 1999; Sampson et al. 2011 14. Drakaina Cave, Poros Gorge, Kefalonia (38 09΄ N. Lat., 20 46΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.13) Reference: Stratouli et al. 1999 15. Ayia Triadha Cave, Karystos, southern Euboea (38 02΄ N. Lat., 24 24΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.14) Reference: Mavridis and Tankosić 2009

 

20

16. Anonymous Cave, Schisto, Keratsini (37 58´ N. Lat., 23 36´ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.14) Reference: Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2009 17. Cave of Lakes, Kastria, Kalavryta (37 57´ N. Lat., 22 08´ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.15) Reference: Facorellis and Maniatis 1997 18. Megalo Varathro Asteriou, Kaisariani, Athens (37 57΄ N. Lat., 23 49΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.16) Reference: Hedges et al. 1993 19. Kitsos Cave, Lavrion (37 44’ N. Lat., 24 2’ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.16) Reference: Delibrias et al. 1974; 1985 20. Klisoura Cave, Argolis, E. Peloponnese (37 40΄ N. Lat., 22° 55΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.17) Reference: Koumouzelis et al. 2001; Karkanas et al. 2004 21. Franchthi Cave, Porto Cheli, Argolis (37 26΄ N. Lat., 23 8΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.18a, b, c) Reference: Lawn 1971; 1974; 1975; Fishman et al. 1977; Buckley 1976 22. Zas Cave, Naxos (37 06΄ N. Lat., 25 33΄ E. Long.) Reference: Manning 2008 (Figure 1.19) 23. Kouveleiki Cave A΄ and B΄, Alepochori, Lakonia (36 57´ N. Lat., 22 46´ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.20) Reference: Sampson et al. 1999 24. Skoini 3, 4 Caves, Areopolis, Itylo Bay (36 41΄ N. Lat., 22° 21΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.21) Reference: Darlas and Psathi 2008 25. Kolominitsa Cave, Areopolis, Itylo Bay (36 41΄ N. Lat., 22° 21΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.21) Reference: Darlas and Psathi 2008 26. Lakonis Cave 1, Gythion, Mani (36 48΄ N. Lat., 22° 36΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.21) Reference: Panagopoulou et al. 2002-4 27. Aghios Georgios Cave, Kalythies, Rhodes (36 20΄ N. Lat., 28 10΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.22) Reference: Sampson et al. 1999 28. Koumelo Cave, Archangelos, Rhodes (36 12΄ N. Lat., 28 8΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.22) Reference: Sampson et al. 1999 29. Platyvola Cave, Keramia Plain, NE Skourachlada, Crete (35 30΄ N. Lat., 24 00΄ E. Long.) (Fig. 1.23) Reference: Bowman et al. 1990

 

List Of Radiocarbon Laboratories

 

The radiocarbon dates were produced by the following radiocarbon laboratories in order of appearance in the table: 1. Laboratory of Archaeometry, National Center for Scientific Research Demokritos, Athens, Greece (DEM-) 2. Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (GrA-) 3. Research Laboratory for Archaeology and Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Oxford University, Oxford, UK (OxA-) 4. Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, USA (CAMS-)

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE  

 

Conclusion

5. Radiocarbon Dating and Cosmogenic Isotopes Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel (RT- and RTA-) 6. Teledyne Isotopes, Westwood, New Jersey, USA (I-) 7. Beta Analytic, Inc. Miami, Florida, (Beta-) 8. Centre des Faibles Radioactivités Laboratoire mixte CNRS-CEA, Gif sur Yvette, France (Gif-) 9. Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania, USA (P-) 10. Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory, Foundation of the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland (Poz-) 11. Radiocarbon Laboratory, Silesian University of Technology Institute of Physics, Gliwice, Poland (Gd-) 12. Radiocarbon Laboratory, Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, Germany (HD-) 13. Radiocarbon Laboratory, British Museum, London, UK (BM-)

 

Archaeological research in caves and rockshelters during the last five decades in Greece together with the development of the radiocarbon dating method allowed the establishment of an absolute time framework of their inhabitation or use by humans from the Palaeolithic period until present time. There are 356 published radiocarbon dates from 29 different caves and rockshelters covering all the age range of this dating method.

 

The use of the latest issues of the international calibration curves IntCal09 and Marine09 allowed the calibration of all these published conventional 14C ages falling in the time period between 50 kyr cal BP and present time (1950 cal BP). These data may be used as a new comparison basis for the study of caves and rockshelters, as well as other open air archaeological sites in Greece and the neighboring areas.

 

 

21

YORGOS FACORELLIS Facorellis, Y., Y. Maniatis and B. Kromer. 1998. “Apparent Radiocarbon Ages of Marine Mollusks Shells from a Greek Island: Calculation of the Marine Reservoir Effect in the Aegean Sea,” Radiocarbon 40, pp. 963-74.

Bibliography Bailey, G.N., C. Gamble and H. Higgs. 1983. “Asprochaliko and Kastritsa: Further Investigations of Palaeolithic Settlement and Economy in Epirus (Northwest Greece), PPS 49, pp. 15-42.

Fishman, B., H. Forbes and B. Lawn. 1977. ”University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates XIX”, Radiocarbon 19, pp. 188-228.

Bailey, G.N., C.S. Gamble, H.P. Higgs, C. Roubet, D.P. Webley, J.A.J Gowlett, D.A. Sturdy, and C. Turner.1986. “Dating Results from Palaeolithic Sites and Environments in Epirus (North-West Greece),” in Archaeological Results from Accelerator Dating, J.A.J. Gowlet and R.E.M Hedges, eds., Oxford, pp. 99-107.

Galanidou, P. and P.C. Tzedakis. 2001. “New AMS Dates from the Upper Palaeolithic Kastritsa,” PPS 67, pp. 27178. Galanidou, P., P.C. Tzedakis, I.T. Lawson, and M.R. Frogley. 2000. “A Revised Chronological and Palaeoenvironmental Framework for the Kastritsa Rockshelter, Northwest Greece,” Antiquity 74, pp. 349-55.

Bowman, S.G.E., J.C. Ambers and M.N. Leese. 1990.“Reevaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984,” Radiocarbon 32, pp. 59-79. Bronk Ramsey, C. 209. “Bayesian Analysis Radiocarbon Dates,” Radiocarbon 51 (1), pp. 337-60.

of

Gillespie, R., J.A.J. Gowlett, E.T. Hall, R.E.M. Hedges, and C. Perry. 1985. “Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 2,” Archaeometry 27, pp. 237-46.

Buckley, J. 1976. “Isotopes’ Radiocarbon Measurements XI,” Radiocarbon 18, pp. 172-89.

Gowlett, J.A.J., E.T. Hall, R.E.M. Hedges, and C. Perry. 1986. “Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 3,” Archaeometry 28, pp. 116-25.

Darlas, A. and E. Psathi. 2008. “Le Paléolithique Supérieur dans la Péninsule du Mani (Péloponnèse, Grèce),” in Proceedings of XV UISPP Congress "The Palaeolithic of the Balkans", Darlas A. and D. Mihailovic, eds., (Vol. 17), (BAR 1819), Oxford, pp. 5159.

Gowlett, J.A.J., R.E.M. Hedges, I.A. Law, and C. Perry. 1986. “Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 4,” Archaeometry 28, pp. 206-21.

Delibrias, G., M.T. Guillier, and J. Labeyrie. 1974. “Gif Natural Radiocarbon Measurements VIII,” Radiocarbon 16, pp. 15-94.

Gowlett, J.A.J., R.E.M. Hedges and R.A. Housley.1997. “Klithi: The AMS Radiocarbon Dating Programme for the Site and its Environs”, in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwest Greece, (Vol.1), Excavation and Intra-site analysis at Klithi (McDonald Institute Monographs), G. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 27-40.

______.1985. “Gif Natural Radiocarbon Measurements X,” Radiocarbon 28, pp. 9-68. Diamant, S. 1974. The Later Village Farming Stage in Southern Greece, Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.

Hedges, R.E.M., R.A. Housley, C.R. Bronk, and G.J. Van Klinken. 1990. “Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 11,” Archaeometry 32, pp. 211-37.

Facorellis, Y. F. [forthcomimg]. “Absolute Dating of the Neolithic Thessaly: The Case of Theopetra Cave and Neighbouring Sites,” in Theopetra Cave: The Neolithic Period, N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., (INSTAP Academic Press), Philadelpheia.

______.1993. “Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 16,” Archaeometry 35, pp. 147-67.

Facorellis, Y. and Y. Maniatis. 1997. “14C Dating of Samples from the Cave of Lakes at Kastria of Kalavryta,” in To Σπήλαιο των Λιμνων στα Καστριά Καλαβρύτων. Μία Προϊστορική Θέση στην Ορεινή Πελοπόννησο, (Εταιρεία Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών 7), A. Σάμψων, ed., Athens, pp. 527-31.

Karkanas, P. 2001. “Site Formation Processes in Theopetra Cave: A Record of Climatic Change during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in Thessaly,” Greece, Geoarchaeology 16, pp. 373-99. Karkanas, P., N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, O. Bar-Yosef, and S. Weiner. 1999. “Mineral Assemblages in Theopetra, Greece: A Framework for Understanding Diagenesis in a Prehistoric Cave,” JAS 26, pp. 1171-80.

Facorellis, Y., N. Kyparissi-Apostolika and Y. Maniatis. 2001. “The Cave of Theopetra, Kalambaka: Radiocarbon evidence for 50,000 Years of Human Presence,” Radiocarbon 43, pp. 975-94.

Karkanas, P., M. Koumouzelis, J.K. Kozlowski, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, F. Berna, and S. Weiner. 2004. “The

22

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE Earliest Evidence for Clay Hearths: Aurignacian Features in Kleisoura Cave 1, Southern Greece,” Antiquity 78, pp. 513-25.

Manning, R.W. Reimer, D.A. Richards, J.R. Southon, S. Talamo, C.S.M. Turney, J. van der Plicht, and C.E. Weyhenmeyer. 2009. “IntCal09 and Marine09 Rradiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0-50,000 Years cal. BP,” Radiocarbon 51 (4), pp. 1111-50.

Koumouzelis, M., B. Ginter, J.K. Kozlowski, M. Pawlikowski, O. Bar-Yosef, R.M. Albert, M. LitynskaZajac, E. Stworzewicz, P. Wojtal, G. Lipecki, T. Tomek, Z.M. Bochenski, and A. Pazdur. 2001. “The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: The Excavations in Kleisoura Cave,” JAS 28, pp. 515-39.

Sampson, A., 1993. Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το Σπήλαιο, Ο Οικισμός, Το Νεκροταφείο, Athens. Sampson, A., Y. Facorellis and Y. Maniatis. 1999. “New Evidence for the Cave Occupation During the Late Neolithic Period in Greece,” in Archéologie et 14C (Actes du 3ème Congrès International, Lyon, 6-10 Avril 1998, Revue de l’Archeometrie Supplément 1999 et Société Préhistorique Française Memoire 26), J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J.P. Daugas, and J.F.Salles, eds., Lyon, pp. 279-86.

Lawn, B. 1971. “University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates XIV,” Radiocarbon 13, pp. 363-77. ______. 1974. “University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates XVII,” Radiocarbon 16, pp. 219-37. ______. 1975. “University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates XVIII,” Radiocarbon 17, pp. 196-215.

Sampson, A., J.K. Kozłowski, M. Kaczanowska, A. Budek, A. Nadachowski, T. Tomek, and B. Miekina. 2011. “Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia from Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age,” Eurasian Prehistory 6 (1), pp. 1-33.

Manning, S.W. 2008. "Some initial wobbly steps towards a Late Neolithic to Early Bronze III radiocarbon chronology for the Cyclades," in N.J. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew (eds.), Όρίζωυ: A colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 55-9.

Stratouli, G., Y. Facorellis and Y. Maniatis. 1999. “Towards Understanding the Transition Between Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Ionian, Western Greece,” in Archéologie et 14C (Actes du 3ème congrès international, Lyon, 6-10 Avril 1998, Revue de l’Archeometrie Supplément 1999 et Société Préhistorique Française Memoire 26), J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J.P. Daugas and J.F.Salles, eds., pp. 273-78.

Mavridis, F. and L. Kormazopoulou. 2009. "Anonymous Cave at Schisto, Keratsini: Excavation of the Years 20062007. Preliminary Report," Αρχαιολογικά Ανάλεκτα εξ Αθηνών 40-41 [2007-2008], pp. 13-24.

Stuiver, M., B. Kromer, B. Becker, and C. W. Ferguson. 1986. “Radiocarbon Age Calibration Back to 13,300 Years BP and the 14C Age Matching of the German Oak and US Bristlecone Pine Chronologies,” Radiocarbon 28 (2B), pp. 969-79.

Mavridis, F. and Ž. Tankosić. 2009. "The Ayia Triadha cave, southern Euboea: finds and implications of the earliest human habitation in the area (a preliminary report," Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 9 (2), pp. 47‐59.

Stuiver, M., P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, J.W. Beck, G.S. Burr, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht and M. Spurk. 1998. “INTCAL 98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal. BP,” Radiocarbon 40, pp. 112751.

Panagopoulou, E., P. Karkanas, G. Tsartsidou, E. Kotjabopoulou, K. Harvati, and M. Ntinou. 2002-4. “Late Pleistocene Archaeological and Fossil Human Evidence from Lakonis Cave, Southern Greece,” JFA 29, pp. 32349.

Theocharis, D.R. 1973. Neolithic Greece, Athens. Reimer, P.J., M.G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, C. Bertrand, P.G. Blackwell, C.E. Buck, G. Burr, K.B. Cutler, P.E. Damon, R.L. Edwards, R.G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T.P. Guilderson, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F.G. McCormac, S. Manning, C.R. Bronk Ramsey, R.W. Reimer, S. Remmele, J.R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F.W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, and C.E. Weyhenmeyer. 2004. “IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 Cal Kyr BP,” Radiocarbon 46, pp. 1029-58.

Treuil, R. 1983. Le Néolithique et le Bronze Ancien Égéens. Les Problèmes Stratigraphiques et Chronologiques, les Techniques, les Hommes (BÉFAR 248), Paris. Trantalidou, K., E. Belegrinou and N. Andreasen. 2010. "Pastoral Societies in the Southern Balkan Peninsula: The Evidence From Caves Occupied During the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic Era," in Proceedings of the International Conference "The Phenomena of Cultural Borders and Border Cultures Across the Passage of Time (From the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity) Dedicated to the 375th anniversary of Universitas Tyrnaviensis, Trnava, 22 - 24 October 2010, M Novotná, W. Jobst, M. Dufková and K.

Reimer, P.J., M.G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, P.G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, C.E. Buck, G.S. Burr, R.L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P.M. Grootes, T.P. Guilderson, I. Hajdas, T.J. Heaton, A.G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen, K.F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, F.G. McCormac, S.W.

23

YORGOS FACORELLIS Kuzmová (eds.), Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10, 295-320.

Αγγίτη,” To Aρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και τη Θράκη 19, pp. 45-80.

Trantalidou, K., V. Skaraki, I. Kara, and M. Ntinou. 2005. “Στρατηγικές Επιβίωσης κατά την 4η Χιλιετία: Στοιχεία από την Εγκατάσταση στην Ανατολική Όχθη του

Trantalidou, K., V. Skaraki and I. Kara. 2007. “Πηγές του Αγγίτη στη Λεκάνη της Δράμας. Τα Κεραμικά Σύνολα από το Εσωτερικό του Σπηλαίου,” AAA 39 [2006], pp. 107-38.

24

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.1. Map of Greece with the geographic location of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text.

25

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1. 2. The age spans in calendar years BP of the sites in the order they appear in Table 1.1 based merely on the radiocarbon dated samples.

26

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.3-1.23. The probability distribution, within 1 (1σ) and 2 (2σ) standard deviations of the calendar dates of the samples from each site sorted by age, thus, without taking into account any localised chronostratigraphical particularities. Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4.

27

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.5.

28

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.6.

29

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.7a.

30

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.7b.

31

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.7c.

32

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.8.

Figure 1.9.

33

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.10.

34

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.11.

35

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.12a.

36

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.12b.

37

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.13.

Figure 1.14.

38

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.15.

39

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.16.

Figure 1.17.

40

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.18a.

41

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.18b.

42

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.18c.

43

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.19.

44

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.20.

45

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Figure 1.21.

Figure 1.22. .

46

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

Figure 1.23.

47

MAARA CAVE, DRAMA (41 13΄ N. Lat., 23° 53΄ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

PIGES KOROMILIAS CAVE, KASTORIA (40 32΄ N. Lat., 21 10΄ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-782

DEM-773

DEM-775

DEM-776

DEM-487

DEM-781

DEM-486

GrA-33276

GrA-34070

GrA-32879

GrA-34069

GrA-32881

SITE

DEM-485

LAB CODE

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

16/7/1994

Not reported

19/7/1994

11/7/1994

19/7/1994

20/7/1994

COLLECTION DATE Not reported

12B-3, Charcoal

15E-3, Charcoal

11B-3, Charcoal

16D-2, Charcoal

8C-3, Charcoal

Trench 2, Square 4, Layer 2, ΟΜ 21β, Hearth 4, Depth 0.60 m, Charcoal Square 2, Charcoal

Trench 2, Square 9, Layer 2, ΟΜ 32γ, Depth 0.30 m, Charcoal Trench 2, Τετρ. 4, Layer 2, ΟΜ 21γ, Depth 0.60 m Under the fallen stones, Charcoal Trench 2, Square 6, Brown colour layer, ΟΜ 2β, Depth 1.95 m, Charcoal Trench 2, Squares 3-4, Layer 3, ΟΜ 30β, Depth 0.60 m Under the fallen rock, Charcoal Square 3, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Square 1, Charcoal

48

Idem

Idem

Idem

K. Trantalidou Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

K. Trantalidou Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

600 ± 30

540 ± 70

380 ± 30

340 ± 35

155 ± 30

4127 ± 319

4057 ± 125

2916 ± 29

2839 ± 19

2823 ± 19

2791 ± 19

2501 ± 140

AGE (yr BP) 299 ± 50

A.D. 1307 - 1399 A.D. 1297 - 1409

A.D. 1315 - 1438 A.D. 1285 - 1462

A.D. 1450 - 1617 A.D. 1445 - 1632

A.D. 1488 - 1632 A.D. 1467 - 1641

3260 - 2210 B.C. 3630 - 1890 B.C. A.D. 1669 - 1945 A.D. 1666 - 1953

1192 - 1049 B.C. 1252 - 1014 B.C. 2870 - 2470 B.C. 2910 - 2210 B.C.

1020 - 939 B.C. 1051 - 924 B.C.

1006 - 934 B.C. 1026 - 915 B.C.

976 - 907 B.C. 1006 - 897 B.C.

790 - 420 B.C. 970 - 230 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE A.D. 1510 - 1650 A.D. 1460 - 1800

643 - 551 (68.3%) 654 - 541 (95.4%)

635 - 513 (68.3%) 665 - 489 (95.4%)

500 - 333 (68.3%) 505 - 319 (95.4%)

462 - 318 (68.3%) 484 - 308 (95.4%)

5210 - 4160 (68.3%) 5580 - 3840 (95.4%) 281 - 6 (68.3%) 285 - (-2) (95.4%)

3141 - 2998 (68.3%) 3201 - 2963 (95.4%) 4810 - 4420 (68.3%) 4860 - 4160 (95.4%)

2969 - 2888 (68.3%) 3000 - 2873 (95.4%)

2955 - 2883 (68.3%) 2975 - 2864 (95.4%)

2925 - 2856 (68.3%) 2955 - 2846 (95.4%)

2740 - 2370 (68.3%) 2920 - 2180 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 440 - 300 (68.3%) 490 - 160 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Trantalidou et al. 2010

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Trantalidou et al. 2005

REFERENCES

Table 1.1. Summary of 356 published 14C ages produced by 13 different radiocarbon dating laboratories using both conventional, gas counting and liquid scintillation, and AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) dating techniques.

YORGOS FACORELLIS

Idem

Idem

MEGALAKKOS ROCKSHELTER, EPIRUS (39 58΄ N. Lat, 20 41΄ E. Long.) Idem

Idem

Idem

KLITHI ROCKSHELTER, PINDUS MOUNTAINS, EPIRUS (39 58΄ N. Lat., 20 41΄ E. Long.) Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

GrA-32883

GrA-32886

OxA-2199

OxA-1093

OxA-1249

OxA-501

OxA-542

OxA-502

OxA-2331

OxA-750

OxA-749

OxA-1091

OxA-2328

OxA-2329

OxA-1155

OxA-2332

OxA-747

OxA-1894

PIGES KOROMILIAS CAVE, KASTORIA (40 32΄ N. Lat., 21 10΄ E. Long.)

SITE

GrA-32882

LAB CODE

1985

1985

1985

1985

1985

1984

1984

1985

1984

1984

1984

1984

1986

1986

1986

1986

Not reported

Not reported

COLLECTION DATE Not reported

Trench VWX, C7005, Burnt bone P24, Spit 15-16, Layer 16, Charred bone Q24, Spit 15, Layer 16, Charred bone Core 3, 19, Depth 205-210 cm, Bone Trench PQRS, F4884, Burnt bone Trench VWX, F8554, Burnt bone Core 2, 7, Depth 127-132 cm, Bone Trench PQRS, F3, S22, spit 26, Charcoal

Not reported, Charred bone

Not reported, Charred bone

S21d, Spit 15-16, Layer 14, Charred bone

Not reported, Charcoal

Unit G, no. 5, Bone

Unit C, no. 19, Charred Bone

N11, 3b1, Charred Bone

Unit H, no. 9, Charred Bone, Caprid

17E-3, Charcoal

15E-4, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE 14D-15D-3, Charcoal

49

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

G.N. Bailey Dept. of Archaeol., Univ. of Cambridge Idem

Idem

Idem

G.N. Bailey Dept. of Archaeol., Univ. of Cambridge Idem

Idem

K. Trantalidou Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

15,950 ± 120

15,600 ± 160

15,580 ± 380

15,460 ± 260

15,220 ± 200

14,200 ± 200

14,060 ± 200

13,640 ± 100

12,300 ± 200

10,420 ± 150

3560 ± 1000

260 ± 100

16,100 ± 160

15,410 ± 210

13,780 ± 140

8800 ± 100

6525 ± 40

6285 ± 40

AGE (yr BP) 3295 ± 30

3340 - 830 B.C. 4680 B.C. - A.D. 220 10,580 - 10,140 B.C. 10,680 - 9820 B.C. 12,840 - 12,000 B.C. 13,130 - 11,850 B.C. 14,950 - 14,730 B.C. 15,070 - 14,550 B.C. 15,460 - 14,960 B.C. 15,730 - 14,920 B.C. 15,600 - 15,080 B.C. 15,880 - 14,920 B.C. 16,720 - 16,120 B.C. 16,880 - 16,030 B.C. 16,990 - 16,210 B.C. 17,370 - 16,090 B.C. 17,350 - 16,580 B.C. 17,590 - 16,030 B.C. 16,950 - 16,680 B.C. 17,320 - 16,600 B.C. 17,350 - 16,990 B.C. 17,460 - 16,910 B.C.

15,080 - 14,810 B.C. 15,270 - 14,620 B.C. 16,930 - 16,550 B.C. 17,290 - 16,070 B.C. 17,480 - 17,020 B.C. 17,590 - 16,910 B.C. A.D. 1490 - 1952 A.D. 1450 - 1954

8180 - 7730 B.C. 8220 - 7610 B.C.

5531 - 5471 B.C. 5607 - 5379 B.C.

5306 - 5225 B.C. 5365 - 5081 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 1609 - 1530 B.C. 1663 - 1499 B.C.

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

12,530 - 12,090 (68.3%) 12,630 - 11,770 (95.4%) 14,790 - 13,950 (68.3%) 15,080 - 13,800 (95.4%) 16,900 - 16,680 (68.3%) 17,020 - 16,500 (95.4%) 17,410 - 16,910 (68.3%) 17,680 - 16,780 (95.4%) 17,550 - 17,030 (68.3%) 17,830 - 16,870 (95.4%) 18,670 - 18,070 (68.3%) 18,830 - 17,980 (95.4%) 18,940 - 18,160 (68.3%) 19,320 - 18,030 (95.4%) 19,300 - 18,530 (68.3%) 19,540 - 17,980 (95.4%) 18,900 - 18,630 (68.3%) 19,270 - 18,550 (95.4%) 19,300 - 18,940 (68.3%) 19,410 - 18,860 (95.4%)

5290 - 2780 (68.3%) 6630 - 1730 (95.4%)

17,030 - 16,760 (68.3%) 17,220 - 16,570 (95.4%) 18,880 - 18,500 (68.3%) 19,240 - 18,020 (95.4%) 19,430 - 18,970 (68.3%) 19,540 - 18,860 (95.4%) 460 - (-1) (68.3%) 500 - (-3) (95.4%)

10,130 - 9670 (68.3%) 10,160 - 9560 (95.4%)

7480 - 7420 (68.3%) 7556 - 7328 (95.4%)

7255 - 7174 (68.3%) 7314 - 7030 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 3558 - 3479 (68.3%) 3612 - 3448 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Hedges et al. 1990 Idem

Hedges et al. 1990 Gowlett et al. 1986, Datelist 4 Idem

Gowlett et al. 1986, Datelist 3 Idem

Gowlett et al. 1986, Datelist 4

Gowlett et al. 1986, Datelist 3

Idem

Idem

Idem

Hedges et al. 1990

Idem

Idem

Trantalidou et al. 2010

REFERENCES

1993 1995

Idem

Idem

Idem

BOILA ROCKSHELTER KONITSA PLAIN, EPIRUS (39 58’ N. Lat., 20 40’ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

OxA-136

OxA-1092

OxA-137

OxA-5244

OxA-5243

OxA-5245

DEM-371

OxA-3402

OxA-3401

DEM-662 OxA-5246

OxA-5242

DEM-502

DEM-501 OxA-5241

GRAVA ROCKSHELTER CORFU (39 29΄ N. Lat., 19° 53΄ E. Long.) Idem

Not reported

Not reported

1994

1996

Idem

Idem

1994

1995

Idem

Idem

1994

Idem

1994

1994

1994

1983

1985

1983

1985

1985

Idem

OxA-1746

OxA-2327

COLLECTION DATE 1985

KLITHI ROCKSHELTER, PINDUS MOUNTAINS, EPIRUS (39 58΄ N. Lat., 20 41΄ E. Long.) Idem

SITE

OxA-2330

LAB CODE

Stratum depth G7 4a 1, Charred bone Stratum depth G8 4d 2, Charred bone

#30432, Samples 8, 9, 10, Depth 1.63 m, Charcoal Unit II, Charred bone

End of Layer 7, #64419/34, Sample 4, Depth 1.38 m, Charcoal Unit IIIa, Charred bone

Unit IIIb, Layer 7/σ3, #5007 Depth 1.32 m, Charcoal Layer 4/σ2, #54209/5, Sample 3, Depth 1.32 m, Charcoal Unit IIIa, Charred bone

Unit IIIb, Charred bone

Unit IIIb, Charred bone

Trench VWX, F8547, Burnt bone C7 X32, Amino acid from collagen of bone Core 3, 17, Depth 240-250 cm, Bone C8 X32, Amino acid from collagen of bone Unit IIIb, Charred bone

Trench PQRS, C6226, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Trench PQRS, C6027, Burnt bone

50

G. Bailey Univ. of Newcastle Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

E. Kotjabopoulou E. Panagopoulou, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

G.N. Bailey Dept. of Archaeol., Univ. of Cambridge Idem

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

9710 ± 95

8840 ± 85

13810 ± 130

13709 ± 238

13,240 ± 110

12901 ± 157

12,480 ± 120

12233 ± 221

11,173 ± 453

10,560 ± 110

10,190 ± 90

70 ± 55

17,000 ± 400

16,490 ± 220

16,300 ± 400

16,250 ± 170

15,960 ± 200

AGE (yr BP) 15,960 ± 130

14,670 - 13,920 B.C. 14,790 - 13,350 B.C. 15,170 - 14,590 B.C. 15,570 - 13,940 B.C. 15,090 - 14,840 B.C. 15,280 - 14,680 B.C. 8200 - 7820 B.C. 8240 - 7680 B.C. 9290 - 8880 B.C. 9320 - 8800 B.C.

10,120 - 9760 B.C. 10,420 - 9450 B.C. 10,680 - 10,280 B.C. 10,720 - 10,160 B.C. 11,620 - 10,650 B.C. 12,220 - 9880 B.C. 12,660 - 11,880 B.C. 13,140 - 11,760 B.C. 12,950 - 12,290 B.C. 13,160 - 12,170 B.C. 13,950 - 13,140 B.C. 14,520 - 12,950 B.C.

17,420 - 16,990 B.C. 17,500 - 16,780 B.C. 17,620 - 17,030 B.C. 17,910 - 16,950 B.C. 17,920 - 16,990 B.C. 18,390 - 16,750 B.C. 17,960 - 17,470 B.C. 18,320 - 17,040 B.C. 18,920 - 17,630 B.C. 19,360 - 17,490 B.C. A.D. 1690 - 1920 A.D. 1680 - 1940

CALENDAR DATE 17,360 - 17,000 B.C. 17,470 - 16,900 B.C.

16,620 - 15,870 (68.3%) 16,740 - 15,300 (95.4%) 17,120 - 16,540 (68.3%) 17,520 - 15,890 (95.4%) 17,040 - 16,780 (68.3%) 17,220 - 16,630 (95.4%) 10,150 - 9770 (68.3%) 10,190 - 9630 (95.4%) 11,240 - 10,830 (68.3%) 11,270 - 10,750 (95.4%)

12,070 - 11,710 (68.3%) 12,370 - 11,400 (95.4%) 12,630 - 12,230 (68.3%) 12,670 - 12,110 (95.4%) 13,570 - 12,600 (68.3%) 14,170 - 11,830 (95.4%) 14,610 - 13,830 (68.3%) 15,090 - 13,710 (95.4%) 14,900 - 14,240 (68.3%) 15,110 - 14,120 (95.4%) 15,900 - 15,090 (68.3%) 16,470 - 14,900 (95.4%)

19,370 - 18,940 (68.3%) 19,450 - 18,730 (95.4%) 19,570 - 18,980 (68.3%) 19,860 - 18,900 (95.4%) 19,870 - 18,940 (68.3%) 20,340 - 18,700 (95.4%) 19,900 - 19,420 (68.3%) 20,270 - 18,990 (95.4%) 20,870 - 19,580 (68.3%) 21,310 - 19,440 (95.4%) 260 - 30 (68.3%) 270 - 10 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 19,310 - 18,950 (68.3%) 19,420 - 18,850 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Gillespie et al. 1985 Hedges et al. 1990 Gillespie et al. 1985 Gowlett et al.1997

Idem

Idem

Hedges et al. 1990

REFERENCES

THEOPETRA CAVE, KALAMBAKA, THESSALY (39 41΄ N. Lat., 21° 41΄ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-75

DEM-76

DEM-224

DEM-60

DEM-243

DEM-124

DEM-359

DEM-225

DEM-250

DEM-141

DEM-920

DEM-122

DEM-913

DEM-591

DEM-361

DEM-1300

DEM-916

SITE

DEM-244

LAB CODE

2/7/1992

19/7/2000

5/7/1993

26/7/1994

6/7/1992

27/8/1990

6/7/1992

28/8/1990

3-9/7/1992

8/1991

2/7/1993

5-10/9/1990

8/8/1991

14/4/1988

1-2/8/1991

7/1989

7/7/1989

COLLECTION DATE 19/8/1991

Square Z12, Depth 1.01-1.21 m ,South-western region, Charcoal Square Z11, Depth 1.50-1.76 m, Charcoal Square H6, Pass 3, Layer B, Depth 0.38-0.53 m, Charcoal Square E11, Depth 1.50-1.60 m, South-eastern region, Under the rock, Charcoal Square Z7, Depth 2.77-3.07 m, Charcoal from infill Square Z11, North-western region, Heap of cemented sediment, Charcoal Square Λ8, Pass 5, Depth 0.360.48 m, South-eastern region, Loose layer, Ash layer II, Charcoal from hearth Square I10, Depth 1.25 m, North-western region, Charcoal Square Λ8, Depth 0.32 m, Eastern region, Loose layer, Charcoal Square Θ11, Depth 0.30-0.85 m, Eastern region, Charcoal Square H10, Depth 2.19 m, Charcoal Square Ι9, Pass 4 Depth 0.250.34 m, Charcoal Square Λ8, Pass 2, Depth 0.09 m, Brown layer, Charcoal

Square Z10, Depth 1.44 m, Charcoal Square Z10, Depth 1.97 m, Charcoal Square E11, Depth 0.90 m, Above the rock, Charcoal Disturbed layer, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Square Z12, Depth 1.81 m, North-eastern region, Charcoal

51

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

6485 ± 51

6473 ± 30

6326 ± 94

6289 ± 28

6248 ± 25

6221 ± 38

6032 ± 21

5485 ± 102

4008 ± 83

1287 ± 62

804 ± 28

714 ± 32

607 ± 150

383 ± 48

315 ± 87

273 ± 210

201 ± 45

AGE (yr BP) 118 ± 76

5307 - 5226 B.C. 5317 - 5217 B.C. 5470 - 5220 B.C. 5480 - 5060 B.C. 5480 - 5381 B.C. 5485 - 5371 B.C. 5490 - 5380 B.C. 5540 - 5330 B.C.

5291 - 5076 B.C. 5302 - 5059 B.C. 5296 - 5214 B.C. 5309 - 5079 B.C.

4962 - 4855 B.C. 4996 - 4848 B.C.

2840 - 2350 B.C. 2870 - 2290 B.C. 4450 - 4240 B.C. 4530 - 4050 B.C.

A.D. 1651 - 1952 A.D. 1638 - 1955 A.D. 1450 - 1950 A.D. 1320 - 1950* A.D. 1470 - 1650 A.D. 1430 - 1950 A.D. 1446 - 1622 A.D. 1439 - 1635 A.D. 1230 - 1450 A.D. 1050 - 1640 A.D. 1265 - 1294 A.D. 1229 - 1385 A.D. 1219 - 1259 A.D. 1183 - 1274 A.D. 660 - 780 A.D. 650 - 880

CALENDAR DATE A.D. 1680 - 1940 A.D. 1660 - 1950

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

7256 - 7175 (68.3%) 7266 - 7166 (95.4%) 7420 - 7160 (68.3%) 7430 - 7010 (95.4%) 7429 - 7330 (68.3%) 7434 - 7320 (95.4%) 7440 - 7330 (68.3%) 7480 - 7280 (95.4%)

7240 - 7025 (68.3%) 7251 - 7008 (95.4%) 7245 - 7163 (68.3%) 7258 - 7028 (95.4%)

6911 - 6804 (68.3%) 6945 - 6797 (95.4%)

4790 - 4300 (68.3%) 4820 - 4240 (95.4%) 6400 - 6190 (68.3%) 6480 - 6000 (95.4%)

299 - (-2) (68.3%) 312 - (-4) (95.4%) 500 - (-1) (68.3%) 640 - 1* (95.4%) 480 - 300 (68.3%) 530 - (-3) (95.4%) 504 - 329 (68.3%) 511 - 315 (95.4%) 730 - 500 (68.3%) 900 - 310 (95.4%) 686 - 656 (68.3%) 722 - 565 (95.4%) 731 - 691 (68.3%) 768 - 677 (95.4%) 1290 - 1170 (68.3%) 1300 - 1070 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 270 - 14 (68.3%) 290 - (-2) (95.4%)

Facorellis (forthcoming) Facorellis et al. 2001

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Facorellis et al. 2001

REFERENCES

THEOPETRA CAVE, KALAMBAKA, THESSALY (39 41΄ N. Lat., 21° 41΄ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-585

DEM-914

DEM-455

DEM-584

DEM-915

DEM-575

DEM-1301

DEM-1299

DEM-917

DEM-919

DEM-918

DEM-360

DEM-583

DEM-576

SITE

DEM-454

LAB CODE

2/8/1994

28/7/1994

19/7/1993

6/7/1992

2/7/1992

1/7/1993

18/7/2000

19-20/7/2000

29/7/1994

8/7/1992

29/7/1994

1/8/1994

7/7/1992

29/7/1994

COLLECTION DATE 28/7/1994

Square Ι11, Depth 0.99 m, South-western region, Charcoal Square Λ8, Pass 6, Depth 0.490.57 m, Eastern region, Loose layer, Charcoal Square Ι11, Depth 1.02-1.55 m, Charcoal Square Ι11, Depth 0.87 m, South-western region, Neolithic deposits, Charcoal Square Λ8, Pass 7, Depth 0.67 m, Eastern region, Loose layer, Charcoal Square Ι11, Depth 0.97-1.07 m, South-western region, Charcoal Square Ι9, Pass 5, Southern region, Depth 0.34-0.44 m, Charcoal Square Ι9, Pass 2 Depth 0.070.15 m, Charcoal Square Λ8, Depth 1.32 m, Eastern region, Loose layer, Charcoal from hearth Square Λ8, Pass 2, Depth 0.120.15 m, Loose layer, Charcoal from hearth Square Λ8, Pass 4, Depth 0.240.37 m Brown layer, Charcoal Square H6, Pass 10, Layer B, Depth 1.15-1.23 m, Charcoal from hearth Square Ι11, Pass 3, Depth 0.57 m, Western region, NeolithicMesolithic boundary, Charcoal from hearth Square Ι11, Pass 3, Depth 0.77 m Neolithic-Mesolithic boundary, Charcoal from hearth

DESCRIPTION TYPE Square Ι11, Pass 3, Depth 0.99 m, Western region, under a ceramic pot, Charcoal

52

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

8060 ± 32

8014 ± 49

7995 ± 73

7901 ± 29

7456 ± 42

7413 ± 33

7139 ± 35

7056 ± 34

7036 ± 44

7000 ± 22

6911 ± 32

6890 ± 43

6842 ± 29

6660 ± 29

AGE (yr BP) 6563 ± 68

7077 - 6863 B.C. 7134 - 6830 B.C.

7057 - 6830 B.C. 7071 - 6710 B.C.

6811 - 6684 B.C. 7022 - 6648 B.C. 7050 - 6820 B.C. 7080 - 6660 B.C.

6392 - 6257 B.C. 6416 - 6238 B.C.

6047 - 5991 B.C. 6067 - 5926 B.C. 6356 - 6236 B.C. 6381 - 6227 B.C.

5985 - 5890 B.C. 6011 - 5812 B.C. 5989 - 5903 B.C. 6011 - 5850 B.C.

5971 - 5846 B.C. 5982 - 5814 B.C.

5834 - 5726 B.C. 5884 - 5676 B.C. 5835 - 5741 B.C. 5876 - 5725 B.C.

5625 - 5560 B.C. 5634 - 5534 B.C. 5744 - 5674 B.C. 5786 - 5662 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 5610 - 5480 B.C. 5630 - 5380 B.C.

9026 - 8812 (68.3%) 9083 - 8779 (95.4%)

9006 - 8779 (68.3%) 9020 - 8659 (95.4%)

8760 - 8633 (68.3%) 8971 - 8597 (95.4%) 9000 - 8760 (68.3%) 9030 - 8610 (95.4%)

8341 - 8206 (68.3%) 8365 - 8187 (95.4%)

7996 - 7940 (68.3%) 8016 - 7875 (95.4%) 8305 - 8185 (68.3%) 8330 - 8176 (95.4%)

7934 - 7839 (68.3%) 7960 - 7761 (95.4%) 7938 - 7852 (68.3%) 7960 - 7799 (95.4%)

7920 - 7795 (68.3%) 7931 - 7763 (95.4%)

7783 - 7675 (68.3%) 7833 - 7625 (95.4%) 7784 - 7690 (68.3%) 7825 - 7674 (95.4%)

7574 - 7509 (68.3%) 7583 - 7483 (95.4%) 7693 - 7623 (68.3%) 7735 - 7611 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 7560 - 7430 (68.3%) 7580 - 7330 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Facorellis et al. 2001

Idem

Facorellis (forthcoming)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Facorellis et al. 2001

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-120

DEM-578

DEM-587

DEM-125

DEM-589

DEM-207

DEM-590

DEM-586

DEM-315

DEM-316

DEM-577

DEM-588

DEM-142

THEOPETRA CAVE, KALAMBAKA, THESSALY (39 41΄ N. Lat., 21° 41΄ E. Long.)

CAMS-21733

RTA-3524

SITE

LAB CODE

24/8/1990

3/8/1994

4/8/1994

8/7/1993

8/7/1993

1/8/1994

17-18/10/1994

30-29/7/1991

17/10/1994

28/8/1990

1/8/1994

18/10/1994

24/8/1990

Not reported

COLLECTION DATE 8/7/1993

Square I10, Stratigraphic unit IV, Upper boundary layer, In situ burnt remains Square I10, Depth 1.04-1.17 m, Eastern region, Charcoal from hearth Square Ι11, Pass 8, Depth 1.37 m, South-eastern region, Charcoal from hearth Square Ι11, Layer 1, Depth 0.60-0.71 m, Central region, Charcoal from hearth Square I10, Depth 1.56 m, Western region, Charcoal from hearth Square Ι11, Pass 6, Depth 1.18 m, Charcoal from hearth Square Γ9, Depth 2.13 m, Charcoal from hearth Square Ι11, Pass 7, Depth 1.27 m, Charcoal from hearth Square Ι11, Layer 2, Depth 0.80 m, Charcoal from hearth Square H6, Layer B, Depth 0.73 m, On human skeleton Charcoal Square H6, Layer B, Depth 0.73 m, On human skeleton Charcoal Square Ι11, Depth 1.37 m, Charcoal from hearth Square Ι11, Depth 1.23 m, Charcoal from hearth Square I10, Depth 1.17 m, Eastern region, Charcoal from hearth

DESCRIPTION TYPE Square Η6, Depth 0.30 m, Human skeleton, burial in situ, Human bones

53

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

9721 ± 390

9461 ± 129

9370 ± 93

9348 ± 84

9274 ± 75

9188 ± 86

9150 ± 112

9093 ± 550

8863 ± 119

8673 ± 76

8558 ± 37

8547 ± 71

8524 ± 57

8250 ± 70

AGE (yr BP) 8070 ± 60

8780 - 8480 B.C. 9120 - 8320 B.C. 9120 - 8610 B.C. 9230 - 8450 B.C. 9820 - 8610 B.C. 10,570 - 8260 B.C.

8740 - 8480 B.C. 8820 - 8320 B.C.

8220 - 7830 B.C. 8280 - 7650 B.C. 9130 - 7600 B.C. 10,150 - 7040 B.C. 8540 - 8280 B.C. 8710 - 8000 B.C. 8530 - 8300 B.C. 8620 - 8270 B.C. 8620 - 8350 B.C. 8710 - 8300 B.C.

7790 - 7590 B.C. 7960 - 7580 B.C.

7599 - 7569 B.C. 7607 - 7534 B.C.

7610 - 7520 B.C. 7730 - 7490 B.C.

7590 - 7540 B.C. 7650 - 7480 B.C.

7450 - 7180 B.C. 7470 - 7080 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 7140 - 6840 B.C. 7290 - 6770 B.C.

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

10,730 - 10,430 (68.3%) 11,070 - 10,270 (95.4%) 11,070 - 10,560 (68.3%) 11,180 - 10,400 (95.4%) 11,770 - 10,560 (68.3%) 12,520 - 10,210 (95.4%)

10,690 - 10,430 (68.3%) 10,770 - 10,260 (95.4%)

10,170 - 9780 (68.3%) 10,230 - 9600 (95.4%) 11,080 - 9550 (68.3%) 12,100 - 8990 (95.4%) 10,490 - 10,230 (68.3%) 10,660 - 9950 (95.4%) 10,480 - 10,250 (68.3%) 10,570 - 10,220 (95.4%) 10,570 - 10,300 (68.3%) 10,660 - 10,250 (95.4%)

9730 - 9540 (68.3%) 9910 - 9530 (95.4%)

9548 - 9518 (68.3%) 9556 - 9483 (95.4%)

9560 - 9470 (68.3%) 9680 - 9430 (95.4%)

9540 - 9490 (68.3%) 9600 - 9430 (95.4%)

9400 - 9130 (68.3%) 9420 - 9030 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 9090 - 8780 (68.3%) 9240 - 8720 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Facorellis et al. 2001

REFERENCES

THEOPETRA CAVE, KALAMBAKA, THESSALY (39 41΄ N. Lat., 21° 41΄ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-249

RT-2880

DEM-248

DEM-245

DEM-246

RT-2876

DEM-208

DEM-241

DEM-372

DEM-254

SITE

RT-2872

LAB CODE

16/7/1992

6/7/1993

21/8/1990

31/7/1991

Not reported

22/8/1991

14-19/8/1991

8-9/7/1992

Not reported

13-16/7/1992

COLLECTION DATE Not reported

Square K10, Depth 1.74 m, North-western region, Human skeleton, Human bones Square Z7, Layers 13-14, Depth 3.62-3.77 m, Charcoal from infill Square Θ10, Depth 3.36-3.61 m, Charcoal from infill

Square Γ9, Depth 2.29 m, Charcoal from hearth

Square E12-Z12, Depth 1.811.98 m, Charcoal from hearth Square E12-Z12, Depth 2.062.13 m, Charcoal from hearth Square I10, Stratigraphic unit V, Lower boundary layer, In situ burnt remains

Square H7-H8, Depth 1.55-1.67 m, Charcoal from hearth

Square H8, Stratigraphic unit V, Lower boundary layer, In situ burnt remains

Square H7-H8, Depth 2.02-2.22 m, Charcoal from infill

DESCRIPTION TYPE Square E13, Stratigraphic unit IV, Upper boundary layer, In situ burnt remains

54

Idem

Idem

N. Kyparissi, P. Karkanas, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

Idem

N. Kyparissi, P. Karkanas, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece N. Kyparissi, P. Karkanas, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

16,540 ± 98

14,895 ± 181

13,723 ± 60

12,539 ± 200

12,280 ± 100

12,055 ± 95

12,045 ± 64

11,882 ± 86

11,675 ± 165

10,971 ± 87

AGE (yr BP) 10,910 ± 170

17,890 - 17,520 B.C. 18,070 - 17,490 B.C.

16,550 - 15,990 B.C. 16,620 - 15,730 B.C.

14,980 - 14,820 B.C. 15,080 - 14,730 B.C.

13,100 - 12,290 B.C. 13,580 - 12,030 B.C.

12,020 - 11,860 B.C. 12,110 - 11,790 B.C. 12,060 - 11,850 B.C. 12,210 - 11,760 B.C. 12,570 - 12,040 B.C. 12,950 - 11,940 B.C.

11,900 - 11,670 B.C. 11,980 - 11,520 B.C.

11,760 - 11,430 B.C. 11,920 - 11,280 B.C.

11,000 - 10,750 B.C. 11,140 - 10,710 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 11,100 - 10,680 B.C. 11,220 - 10,600 B.C.

19,840 - 19,470 (68.3%) 20,020 - 19,440 (95.4%)

18,500 - 17,940 (68.3%) 18,570 - 17,680 (95.4%)

16,930 - 16,760 (68.3%) 17,030 - 16,680 (95.4%)

15,040 - 14,240 (68.3%) 15,530 - 13,980 (95.4%)

13,970 - 13,810 (68.3%) 14,060 - 13,740 (95.4%) 14,010 - 13,800 (68.3%) 14,160 - 13,710 (95.4%) 14,520 - 13,990 (68.3%) 14,900 - 13,890 (95.4%)

13,850 - 13,620 (68.3%) 13,930 - 13,470 (95.4%)

13,710 - 13,380 (68.3%) 13,870 - 13,230 (95.4%)

12,950 - 12,700 (68.3%) 13,090 - 12,660 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 13,040 - 12,630 (68.3%) 13,170 - 12,550 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Facorellis et al. 2001

Karkanas 2001

Idem

Idem

Facorellis et al. 2001

Karkanas 2001

Facorellis et al. 2001

Karkanas and KyparissiApostolika 1999

REFERENCES

THEOPETRA CAVE, KALAMBAKA, THESSALY (39 41΄ N. Lat., 21° 41΄ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-61

RT-2879

RT-2874

RT-2870

DEM-223

DEM-374

DEM-247

RT-2878

DEM-134

DEM-74

SITE

RTA-3194

LAB CODE

18/7/1989

8/1990

Not reported

14/8/1991

5-7/7/1993

23/8/1991

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

26-27/10/1988

COLLECTION DATE Not reported

Square Z9, Depth 4.28 m, Charcoal from hearth

Square Z8-Z9, Depth 4.55 m, Charcoal from hearth

Square Z7, Layer 13, Depth 3.62-3.77 m, Charcoal from hearth Square Θ10, Depth 3.03 m, Charcoal from hearth Square Z7, Stratigraphic unit II6(A), Upper boundary layer, In situ burnt remains

Square Θ10-I10, Depth 2.923.29 m, Charcoal from hearth

Square I10, Stratigraphic unit II11(B), In situ burnt remains Square E13, Stratigraphic unit IIB, In situ burnt remains

Square Z9, Stratigraphic unit II11(B), In situ burnt remains

Square Z8, Depth 3.62-3.83 m, Charcoal from hearth

DESCRIPTION TYPE Square Λ8, Stratigraphic unit II12, Upper boundary layer, In situ burnt remains

55

N. Kyparissi, P. Karkanas, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

Idem

N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

Idem

N. Kyparissi, P. Karkanas, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece N. Kyparissi, P. Karkanas, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

38,079 ± 1942

36,827 ± 845

36,550 ± 420

33,085 ± 1573

32,672 ± 1503

30,023 ± 876

26,470 ± 1010

25,820 ± 270

25,625 ± 500

25,354 ± 2132

AGE (yr BP) 16,620 ± 110

42,540 - 39,340 B.C. 45,420 - 37,450 B.C.

40,460 - 39,200 B.C. 41,220 - 38,420 B.C.

38,060 - 34,450 B.C. 39,740 - 33,060 B.C. 39,960 - 39,320 B.C. 40,300 - 39,000 B.C.

37,310 - 33,550 B.C. 39,320 - 32,860 B.C.

34,190 - 31,530 B.C. 34,710 - 30,740 B.C.

28,930 - 28,450 B.C. 29,160 - 28,260 B.C. 30,230 - 28,220 B.C. 31,880 - 27,420 B.C.

29,020 - 27,920 B.C. 29,180 - 27,590 B.C.

30,980 - 26,000 B.C. 35,610 - 23,860 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 17,970 - 17,600 B.C. 18,180 - 17,510 B.C.

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

44,490 - 41,280 (68.3%) 47,370 - 39,400 (95.4%)

42,410 - 41,150 (68.3%) 43,170 - 40,370 (95.4%)

40,010 - 36,400 (68.3%) 41,690 - 35,010 (95.4%) 41,900 - 41,270 (68.3%) 42,250 - 40,950 (95.4%)

39,260 - 35,500 (68.3%) 41,270 - 34,810 (95.4%)

36,140 - 33,480 (68.3%) 36,660 - 32,690 (95.4%)

30,880 - 30,400 (68.3%) 31,110 - 30,210 (95.4%) 32,180 - 30,170 (68.3%) 33,830 - 29,370 (95.4%)

30,970 - 29,870 (68.3%) 31,130 - 29,530 (95.4%)

32,930 - 27,950 (68.3%) 37,560 - 25,810 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 19,920 - 19,550 (68.3%) 20,120 - 19,460 (95.4%)

Idem

Facorellis et al. 2001

Karkanas 2001

Idem

Idem

Karkanas and KyparissiApostolika 1999 Facorellis et al. 2001

Idem

Karkanas 2001

Facorellis et al. 2001

Karkanas 2001

REFERENCES

Idem

DEM-613

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Beta-143304

Beta-143301

Beta-143302

I-2465

Beta-132437

I-2468

KASTRITSA ROCKSHELTER, IOANNINA (39 38΄ N. Lat., 20° 55΄ E. Long.)

Idem

DEM-140

I-1960

THEOPETRA CAVE, KALAMBAKA, THESSALY (39 41΄ N. Lat., 21° 41΄ E. Long.)

SITE

DEM-133

LAB CODE

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

11/11/1996

8/1990

COLLECTION DATE 24/8/1990

R2, Unit 1, Strata 1, Layer Y2, Spit 12, Stony red, silty clays, stone fragments, extensive anthropogenic deposits, Bone R10, Unit 1, Strata 1, Layer Y2A, Spit 17 Stony red, silty clays, stone fragments, extensive anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R1, Unit 1, Strata 1, Layer Y6C, Spit 30 Stony red, silty clays, stone fragments, extensive anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R1, Unit 1, Strata 3, Layer Y7A, Spit 34 Stony red, silty clays, stone fragments, extensive anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R2, Unit 1, Strata 5, Layer Y15, Spit 63, Above upper beach, anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R10, Unit 1, Strata 5, Layer Y12G, Spit 50 Stony red, silty clays, stone fragments, extensive anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R5, Unit 2, Strata 9, Layer Y21, Spit 75, Top of lower beach anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal

Square Θ10, Depth 4.07-4.17 m, Human footprints layer, Charcoal from hearth

Square Z8, Depth 4.80 m, Charcoal from hearth

DESCRIPTION TYPE Square Z8-Z9, Depth 4.39-4.49 m, Charcoal from hearth

56

E. Higgs

N. Galanidou University of Crete

E. Higgs

Idem

Idem

N. Galanidou University of Crete

E. Higgs

Idem

N. Kyparissi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

20,200 ± 480

20,000 ± 80

19,900 ± 370

19,660 ± 160

19,360 ± 160

15,930 ± 130

13,400 ± 210

46,327 ± 1590

39,414 ± 3914

AGE (yr BP) 39,274 ± 4771

22.780 - 21,590 B.C. 23,540 - 20,750 B.C.

22,140 - 21,770 B.C. 22,320 - 21,570 B.C.

22,340 - 21,430 B.C. 22,770 - 20,700 B.C.

21,840 - 21,370 B.C. 22,010 - 20,750 B.C.

21,440 - 20,720 B.C. 21,630 - 20,570 B.C.

17,340 - 16,970 B.C. 17,460 - 16,890 B.C.

45,570 - 39,470 B.C. 50,000*- 37,790 B.C. 50,000*- 46,160 B.C. 50,000*- 44,750 B.C. 14,870 - 14,010 B.C. 14,970 - 13,330 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 46,150 - 39,270 B.C. 50,000*- 37,790 B.C.

24,730 - 23,540 (68.3%) 25,490 - 22,700 (95.4%)

24,090 - 23,720 (68.3%) 24,270 - 23,520 (95.4%)

24,290 - 23,380 (68.3%) 24,720 - 22,650 (95.4%)

23,790 - 23,320 (68.3%) 23,960 - 22,700 (95.4%)

23,390 - 22,670 (68.3%) 23,580 - 22,520 (95.4%)

19,290 - 18,920 (68.3%) 19,410 - 18,840 (95.4%)

16,820 - 15,960 (68.3%) 16,920 - 15,280 (95.4%)

50,000*- 48,110 (68.3%) 50,000*- 46,700 (95.4%)

47,520 - 41,420 (68.3%) 50,000*- 39,740 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 48,100 - 41,220 (68.3%) 50,000*- 38,940 (95.4%)

Bailey et al. 1986

Galanidou and Tzedakis 2001

Bailey et al. 1986

Idem

Idem

Galanidou and Tzedakis 2001

Bailey et al. 1986

Idem

Idem

Facorellis et al. 2001

REFERENCES

Idem

Ι-1957

DEM-392

CYCLOPS CAVE, YOURA, N. SPORADES (39 22´ N. Lat., 24 10´ E. Long.)

Idem

Ι-1958

I-1678

Idem

Idem

Beta-131046

I-1956

Idem

Beta-143303

Idem

Idem

Beta-143305

Ι-1677

Idem

I-2467

ASPROCHALIKO SHELTER EPIRUS (39 16΄ N. Lat., 20° 50΄ E. Long.) Idem

Idem

Beta-131047

I-1679

Idem

KASTRITSA ROCKSHELTER, IOANNINA (39 38΄ N. Lat., 20° 55΄ E. Long.)

Beta-143307

I-2466

SITE

LAB CODE

7/7/1993

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

COLLECTION DATE Not reported

R3, Layer 14, Spit 19, MicroMousterian, Charcoal Trench C/West, Layer 5, Squares (1-4), Depth 0.80 – 0.90 m, Charcoal

TrBC, Layer 8, Spit 28, Mixed layer, Bone TrBA, Layer 14, Spit 19, MicroMousterian, Charcoal R3, Layer 10, Spit 9, Upper palaeolithic, Charcoal R4, Layer 18, Spit 30, Basal Mousterian, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE R52, Unit 1, Strata 5, Layer Y14B, Spit 64 Stony red, silty clays, stone fragments, extensive anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R2, Unit 2, Strata 7, Layer Y20, Spit 73-74, Below upper beach, anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R10, Unit 1, Strata 5, Layer Y13B2, Spit 52 Stony red, silty clays, stone fragments, extensive anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R5, Unit 2, Strata 9, Layer Y21, Spit 75, Top of lower beach anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R10, Unit 1, Strata 5, Layer Y15, Spit 61, Stony red, silty clays, stone fragments, extensive anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R2, Unit 2, Strata 9, Layer Y21, Spit 69, beaches/ anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal R1, Unit 2, Strata 9, Layer Y24B, beaches/ anthropogenic deposits, Charcoal TrBC, Layer 8, Spit 29-31, Mixed layer, Bone

57

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

G. N. Bailey, C. Gamble and H. Higgs

Idem

Idem

N. Galanidou University of Crete

E. Higgs

N. Galanidou University of Crete

E. Higgs

N. Galanidou University of Crete

SUBMITTED

34  56

> 39,900

37,000 + 4100 - 2700

26,100 ± 900

24,900 ± 1100

17,200 ± 400

13,700 ± 260

23,880 ± 100

23,840 ± 240

22,230 ± 210

21,800 ± 470

21,350 ± 80

20,800 ± 810

AGE (yr BP) 20,590 ± 70

A.D. 1700 - 1920 A.D. 1680 - 1940

19,190 - 18,110 B.C. 19,520 - 17,600 B.C. 28,770 - 26,720 B.C. 30,040 - 25,680 B.C. 29,460 - 27,840 B.C. 30,980 - 27,290 B.C. 44,210 - 37,290 B.C. 50,000*- 35,550 B.C. > 42380 B.C.

15,200 - 14,530 B.C. 15,580 - 13,690 B.C.

26,910 - 26,480 B.C. 27,260 - 26,360 B.C.

27,110 - 26,410 B.C. 27,370 - 26,120 B.C.

25,480 - 24,280 B.C. 25,720 - 24,190 B.C.

24,920 - 23,490 B.C. 25,740 - 23,050 B.C.

23,790 - 23,320 B.C. 23,950 - 23,150 B.C.

24,040 - 21,940 B.C. 25,650 - 21,070 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 22,810 - 22,470 B.C. 22,990 - 22,370 B.C.

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

250 - 30 (68.3%) 270 - 10 (95.4%)

> 44,330

21,140 - 20,050 (68.3%) 21,470 - 19,550 (95.4%) 30,720 - 28,670 (68.3%) 31,990 - 27,630 (95.4%) 31,410 - 29,790 (68.3%) 32,920 - 29,240 (95.4%) 46,160 - 38,570 (68.3%) 50,000*- 37,140 (95.4%)

17,150 - 16,470 (68.3%) 17,530 - 15,640 (95.4%)

28,860 - 28,430 (68.3%) 29,210 - 28,310 (95.4%)

29,050 - 28,360 (68.3%) 29,320 - 28,070 (95.4%)

27,430 - 26,230 (68.3%) 27,670 - 26,140 (95.4%)

26,860 - 25,440 (68.3%) 27,690 - 25,000 (95.4%)

25,740 - 25,270 (68.3%) 25,900 - 25,100 (95.4%)

25,990 - 23,890 (68.3%) 27,600 - 23,020 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 24,760 - 24,420 (68.3%) 24,940 - 24,310 (95.4%)

Facorellis et al. 1998

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Bailey et al. 1986

Idem

Idem

Galanidou and Tzedakis 2001

Bailey et al. 1986

Galanidou and Tzedakis 2001

Bailey et al. 1986

Galanidou and Tzedakis 2001

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-267

DEM-494

DEM-266

DEM-594

DEM-393

DEM-636

DEM-595

DEM-580

DEM-522

DEM-524

DEM-523

DEM-598

DEM-596

DEM-521

CYCLOPS CAVE, YOURA, N. SPORADES (39 22´ N. Lat., 24 10´ E. Long.) Idem

SITE

DEM-268

LAB CODE

13-14/7/1994

25/7/1995

12/7/1995

18/7/1995

11/7/1995

10/7/1995

7/7/1994

7/7/1995

7/7/1993

4/7/1994

3/7/1992

5/7/1995

3/7/1992

5/7/1995

COLLECTION DATE 3/7/1992 Trench C/East, Layer 14, Square 9, Depth 2.03 – 2.13 m, Charcoal Trench B, Layer 7, Squares (14), Depth 1.18 m, Charcoal Trench C/East, Layer 14, Square 9, Depth 2.03–2.13 m, Animal bones Trench B, Layer 4, Square 4, Depth 0.70 m, Charcoal Trench C/West, Layer 8, Squares (5-6), Depth 1.40 – 1.85 m, Charcoal Trench C/West, Layer 6, Squares (1-4), Depth 1.20 m, Charcoal Trench C/East, Layer 15, Square 6, Depth 2.13 – 2.28 m, Charcoal Trench C/West, Layer 10, Squares (1-2), Depth 2.00 - 2.20 m, Charcoal Trench C/East, Layer 17, Square 5, Depth 2.38 - 2.47 m, Charcoal Trench C/East, Layer 19, Square 5, Depth 2.80 m, Charcoal Trench C/East, Layer 20, Square 5, Depth 3.02 m, Charcoal Trench C/West, Square 3 Depth 2.30 - 2.32 m, Charcoal entrapped in flowstone, Charcoal Trench C/East, Layer 23, Square 7, Depth 3.60 – 4.00 m, Charcoal Trench C/West, Layer 12, Squares (1-2), Depth 2.40 - 2.70 m, Charcoal entrapped in flowstone, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Trench A, Layer 3, Squares (12), Depth 0.37 m, Charcoal

58

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

3646 - 3536 B.C. 3653 - 3528 B.C. 4230 - 4056 B.C. 4253 - 4006 B.C. 4650 - 4542 B.C. 4685 - 4521 B.C. 5744 - 5670 B.C. 5806 - 5641 B.C. 6230 - 6100 B.C. 6360 - 6060 B.C. 6370 - 6220 B.C. 6410 - 6100 B.C. 6648 - 6591 B.C. 6659 - 6506 B.C. 7311 - 7142 B.C. 7420 - 7071 B.C. 7451 - 7206 B.C. 7458 - 7190 B.C. 7573 - 7541 B.C. 7582 - 7526 B.C. 7939 - 7794 B.C. 7956 - 7751 B.C. 8560 - 8350 B.C. 8620 - 8310 B.C. 8557 - 8354 B.C. 8598 - 8335 B.C. 8570 - 8350 B.C. 8620 - 8320 B.C.

4815  25 5311  35

6838  40

7398  64 7779  32 8209  47 8283  27

9252  31 9258  50

9250  60

8791  23

8488  22

7318  57

5741 ± 22

CALENDAR DATE A.D. 70 - 210 A.D. 20 - 250

AGE (yr BP) 1879  51

10,520 - 10,300 (68.3%) 10,570 - 10,270 (95.4%)

10,506 - 10,303 (68.3%) 10,547 - 10,284 (95.4%)

9400 - 9155 (68.3%) 9407 - 9139 (95.4%) 9522 - 9490 (68.3%) 9531 - 9475 (95.4%) 9888 - 9743 (68.3%) 9905 - 9700 (95.4%) 10,510 - 10,300 (68.3%) 10,570 - 10,260 (95.4%)

9260 - 9091 (68.3%) 9369 - 9020 (95.4%)

8597 - 8540 (68.3%) 8608 - 8455 (95.4%)

8320 - 8170 (68.3%) 8360 - 8050 (95.4%)

7693 - 7619 (68.3%) 7755 - 7590 (95.4%) 8180 - 8050 (68.3%) 8310 - 8010 (95.4%)

6179 - 6005 (68.3%) 6202 - 5955 (95.4%) 6599 - 6491 (68.3%) 6634 - 6470 (95.4%)

5595 - 5485 (68.3%) 5602 - 5477 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 1880 - 1740 (68.3%) 1930 - 1700 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Facorellis et al. 1998

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

Idem

SKOTINI CAVE, THARROUNIA, EUBOEA (38 31´ N. Lat., 23 59´ E. Long.) Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Gif-2124

Gif-2339

Gif-2340

DEM-104

DEM-107

DEM-113

DEM-143

DEM-103

DEM-138

DEM-144

DEM-106

Gif-2123

Gif-2122

CYCLOPS CAVE, YOURA, N. SPORADES (39 22´ N. Lat., 24 10´ E. Long.) CORYCIAN CAVE, PARNASSOS, DELPHI (38 29’ N. Lat., 22 30’ E. Long.) Idem

SITE

DEM-597

LAB CODE

8/1990

1986

8/1988

8/1990

8/1988

8/1988

1986

1986

1971

1971

1971

1971

1971

COLLECTION DATE 14-15/7/1994

Trench A, Layer 13, Square 3, Depth 1.80-1.90 m, Floor surface, Charcoal Trench A, Layer 15, Depth 1.95-2.00 m, Floor surface with hearth, Charcoal Trench A, Layer 21, Depth 2.75 m, Floor surface underlying hearth deposits, Charcoal Trench C, Layer 24, Squares (56), Depth 3.20 m, Floor surface with hearth, Charcoal Trench A, Layer 12, Depth 2.75 m, Floor surface underlying hearth deposits, Charcoal Trench A, Layers 4-5, Square 8, Depth 0.50-0.65 m, Disturbed burial, Charcoal Trench C, Layer 14, Square 2, Depth 2.00 m, Dark sediment with angular stones and hearths, Charcoal

71/35, Layer 5a, Unidentified broken and burnt animal bones without archaeological clues in consolidated layer Animal bones Trench A, Layer 6, Square 4, Depth 0.80 m, Charcoal

71/19, Layer 4a, Charcoal

71/03, Layer 3b, Charcoal

70/01, Layer 3, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Trench C/West, Layer 14, Square 1, Depth 2.90 - 3.10 m, Charcoal 70/02, Layer 2, Charcoal

59

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

N. Lambert, French School at Athens

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

SUBMITTED

3649 - 3531 B.C. 3695 - 3386 B.C. 4720 - 4060 B.C. 5200 - 3790 B.C. 4550 - 4380 B.C. 4650 - 4360 B.C. 4650 - 4460 B.C. 4710 - 4370 B.C. 4680 - 4532 B.C. 4692 - 4489 B.C. 4720 - 4520 B.C. 4840 - 4400 B.C. 4721 - 4616 B.C. 4779 - 4554 B.C. 4900 - 4720 B.C. 5000 - 4620 B.C.

5564  276 5658  54 5706  64 5738  39

5769  89 5817  37 5935  69

5320 - 5070 B.C. 5470 - 4990 B.C. 5470 - 5300 B.C. 5530 - 5080 B.C. 6390 - 6080 B.C. 6590 - 5920 B.C. > 42,450 B.C.

4350 - 3710 B.C. 4710 - 3380 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 8608 - 8456 B.C. 8626 - 8344 B.C.

4812  42

 40,000

7370 ± 170

6380 ± 90

6250 ± 90

5230 ± 290

AGE (yr BP) 9274  43

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

6850 - 6670 (68.3%) 6950 - 6570 (95.4%)

6670 - 6565 (68.3%) 6728 - 6503 (95.4%)

6670 - 6470 (68.3%) 6790 - 6350 (95.4%)

6629 - 6481 (68.3%) 6641 - 6438 (95.4%)

6600 - 6410 (68.3%) 6660 - 6320 (95.4%)

6500 - 6320 (68.3%) 6600 - 6310 (95.4%)

6660 - 6000 (68.3%) 7150 - 5740 (95.4%)

5598 - 5480 (68.3%) 5644 - 5335 (95.4%)

7270 - 7020 (68.3%) 7420 - 6940 (95.4%) 7420 - 7250 (68.3%) 7480 - 7030 (95.4%) 8340 - 8030 (68.3%) 8540 - 7860 (95.4%) > 44,400

6290 - 5660 (68.3%) 6660 - 5330 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 10,557 - 10,405 (68.3%) 10,575 - 10,293 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Sampson 1993

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Delibrias et al. 1974

Facorellis et al. 1998

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

Idem

SARAKENOS CAVE, AKRAIFNIO, BOEOTIA (38 28´ N. Lat., 23 14´ E. Long.) Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-105

DEM-136

DEM-137

DEM-1139

DEM-1065

DEM-1140

DEM-671

DEM-815

DEM-1141

DEM-1063

DEM-1062

DEM-1064

DEM-1061

DEM-1138

DEM-1136

DEM-1137

DEM-672

SKOTINI CAVE, THARROUNIA, EUBOEA (38 31´ N. Lat., 23 59´ E. Long.)

SITE

DEM-145

LAB CODE

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

10/10/1994

Not reported

Not reported

10/10/1994

Not reported

8/1990

8/1990

1986

COLLECTION DATE 8/1988

Trench A, Layer 17, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 18, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 14, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 11, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 10, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 11, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 11, Charcoal

Trench C, Layer 13, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 7, Square 3, Depth 1.40 m, Dark brown sediment with gray spots, Charcoal Trench C, Layer 12, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 9, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 7, Square 6, Depth 1.40 m, Dark brown sediment with gray spots, Charcoal Trench A, Layer 8, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Trench A, Layer 16, Squares (12), Depth 2.15 m, Hearth deposit in reddish occupation layer, Charcoal Trench A, Layer 5, Square 7, Depth 0.50-0.65 m, Charcoal Trench C, Layer 28, Squares (34), Depth 3.70 m, Thick hearth deposit, Charcoal Trench C, Layer 30, Square 4, Depth 3.90-4.00 m, Thick hearth deposit, Charcoal Trench A, Layer 5, Charcoal

60

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

5308 - 5081 B.C. 5320 - 5058 B.C.

6247  49

6722 ± 20

6618 ± 22

6125 ± 42

6117 ± 55

6096 ± 24

6081 ± 33

6062 ± 29

5931 ± 25

5874 ± 22

5820 ± 52

5671 ± 20

5407 ± 22

4895 ± 31

3859 ± 26

4775 - 4720 B.C. 4795 - 4696 B.C. 4842 - 4777 B.C. 4881 - 4724 B.C. 5016 - 4934 B.C. 5051 - 4851 B.C. 5036 - 4946 B.C. 5204 - 4851 B.C. 5052 - 4983 B.C. 5201 - 4941 B.C. 5210 - 4960 B.C. 5220 - 4860 B.C. 5207 - 4992 B.C. 5211 - 4953 B.C. 5613 - 5531 B.C. 5620 - 5511 B.C. 5658 - 5623 B.C. 5671 - 5570 B.C.

4327 - 4256 B.C. 4332 - 4238 B.C. 4526 - 4464 B.C. 4542 - 4459 B.C. 4770 - 4600 B.C. 4790 - 4550 B.C.

3696 - 3650 B.C. 3760 - 3637 B.C.

2433 - 2244 B.C. 2461 - 2210 B.C.

5207 - 5044 B.C. 5219 - 4983 B.C. 5207 - 5056 B.C. 5215 - 5008 B.C.

6151  43 6163  36

CALENDAR DATE 4906 - 4789 B.C. 4943 - 4728 B.C.

AGE (yr BP) 5961  40

6724 - 6669 (68.3%) 6744 - 6645 (95.4%) 6791 - 6726 (68.3%) 6830 - 6673 (95.4%) 6965 - 6883 (68.3%) 7000 - 6800 (95.4%) 6985 - 6895 (68.3%) 7153 - 6800 (95.4%) 7001 - 6932 (68.3%) 7150 - 6890 (95.4%) 7160 - 6910 (68.3%) 7170 - 6810 (95.4%) 7156 - 6941 (68.3%) 7160 - 6902 (95.4%) 7562 - 7480 (68.3%) 7569 - 7460 (95.4%) 7607 - 7572 (68.3%) 7620 - 7519 (95.4%)

6276 - 6205 (68.3%) 6281 - 6187 (95.4%) 6475 - 6413 (68.3%) 6491 - 6408 (95.4%) 6720 - 6550 (68.3%) 6740 - 6490 (95.4%)

5645 - 5599 (68.3%) 5709 - 5586 (95.4%)

4404 - 4193 (68.3%) 4410 - 4159 (95.4%)

7257 - 7030 (68.3%) 7269 - 7007 (95.4%)

7156 - 6993 (68.3%) 7168 - 6932 (95.4%) 7156 - 7005 (68.3%) 7164 - 6957 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 6855 - 6738 (68.3%) 6892 - 6677 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Sampson et al. 2011 Idem

Sampson et al. 1999

Sampson et al. 2011 Idem

Sampson et al. 1999

Sampson et al. 2011

Idem

Idem

Idem

Sampson 1993

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-1164

DEM-1211

Poz-9842

Poz-9843

Poz-22182

Poz-27241

Poz-22647

Poz-27242

Poz-22649

Poz-22648

Poz-22666

Poz-22183

DEM-1207

DEM-1208

Poz-21360

DEM-1209

DEM-1210

DEM-1206

DEM-1118

SARAKENOS CAVE, AKRAIFNIO, BOEOTIA (38 28´ N. Lat., 23 14´ E. Long.) Idem

SITE

DEM-1117

LAB CODE

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

COLLECTION DATE Not reported

Trench B, NE corner, Charcoal

Trench B, NE corner, Charcoal

Trench A, Unit 4, Square 14, Depth 445 cm, Charcoal Trench B, NE corner, Charcoal

Trench B, Charcoal

Trench A, Unit 2, Square 11, Depth 380-390 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 2, Square 11, Depth 400-410 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Borders unit 2 and 3, Square 11, Depth 390-400 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 3, Square 2, Depth 404 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 3, Square 7/11, profile N, Depth 418 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 3, Square 2, Depth 405 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 4, Square 7/11, profile N, Depth 429 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 4, Square 7/11, profile N, Depth 410 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 4, Square 5, Depth 395 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 4, Square 14, Depth 410 cm, Charcoal Trench B, Charcoal

Trench B, Charcoal

Trench B, Layer 3, Charcoal

Trench A, Layer 19, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Trench A, Layer 21, Charcoal

61

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

SUBMITTED

9233 ± 30

9230 ± 30

9177 ± 31

8590 ± 50

8073 ± 30

8057 ± 36

7980 ± 50

7960 ± 40

7960 ± 50

7950 ± 50

7810 ± 50

7780 ± 50

7740 ± 50

7680 ± 40

7560 ± 50

7460 ± 50

7261 ± 20

6891 ± 25

6794 ± 21

AGE (yr BP) 6779 ± 42

7029 - 6778 B.C. 7042 - 6699 B.C. 7040 - 6830 B.C. 7050 - 6700 B.C. 7077 - 6847 B.C. 7134 - 6828 B.C. 7077 - 7042 B.C. 7142 - 6839 B.C. 7650 - 7570 B.C. 7720 - 7540 B.C. 8431 - 8304 B.C. 8529 - 8294 B.C. 8539 - 8349 B.C. 8552 - 8326 B.C. 8542 - 8349 B.C. 8555 - 8328 B.C.

7030 - 6780 B.C. 7040 - 6700 B.C.

6690 - 6590 B.C. 6800 - 6500 B.C. 7030 - 6710 B.C. 7040 - 6690 B.C.

6630 - 6510 B.C. 6650 - 6470 B.C. 6650 - 6530 B.C. 6700 - 6480 B.C.

5713 - 5668 B.C. 5725 - 5643 B.C. 5789 - 5731 B.C. 5838 - 5724 B.C. 6206 - 6071 B.C. 6212 - 6065 B.C. 6400 - 6260 B.C. 6430 - 6240 B.C. 6460 - 6400 B.C. 6500 - 6260 B.C. 6567 - 6468 B.C. 6598 - 6453 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 5711 - 5645 B.C. 5731 - 5626 B.C.

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

8978 - 8727 (68.3%) 8991 - 8648 (95.4%) 8990 - 8780 (68.3%) 9000 - 8650 (95.4%) 9026 - 8796 (68.3%) 9083 - 8777 (95.4%) 9026 - 8991 (68.3%) 9091 - 8788 (95.4%) 9600 - 9520 (68.3%) 9670 - 9490 (95.4%) 10,380 - 10,253 (68.3%) 10,478 - 10,243 (95.4%) 10,488 - 10,298 (68.3%) 10,501 - 10,275 (95.4%) 10,491 - 10,298 (68.3%) 10,504 - 10,277 (95.4%)

8980 - 8730 (68.3%) 8990 - 8650 (95.4%)

8640 - 8540 (68.3%) 8750 - 8450 (95.4%) 8980 - 8660 (68.3%) 8990 - 8640 (95.4%)

8580 - 8450 (68.3%) 8600 - 8420 (95.4%) 8600 - 8480 (68.3%) 8650 - 8430 (95.4%)

7662 - 7617 (68.3%) 7674 - 7592 (95.4%) 7738 - 7680 (68.3%) 7787 - 7673 (95.4%) 8155 - 8020 (68.3%) 8161 - 8014 (95.4%) 8350 - 8200 (68.3%) 8380 - 8190 (95.4%) 8410 - 8350 (68.3%) 8450 - 8210 (95.4%) 8516 - 8417 (68.3%) 8547 - 8402 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 7660 - 7594 (68.3%) 7680 - 7575 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Sampson et al. 2011

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

Idem

DRAKAINA CAVE, POROS, KEFALONIA (38 09΄ N. Lat., 20 46΄ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

AYIA TRIADHA CAVE, KARYSTOS, SOUTHERN EUBOEA (38 02΄ N. Lat., 24 24΄ E. Long.)

ANONYMOUS CAVE, SCHISTO, KERATSINI (37 58´ N. Lat., 23 36´ E. Long.)

Poz-21359

Poz-21361

OxA-11681

DEM-285

DEM-284

DEM-527

DEM-631

DEM-526

DEM-634

DEM-632

DEM-630

DEM-629

DEM-633

DEM-628

DEM-1841

DEM-1822

Poz-22184

SARAKENOS CAVE, AKRAIFNIO, BOEOTIA (38 28´ N. Lat., 23 14´ E. Long.) Idem

SITE

Poz-21418

LAB CODE

2007

20/6/2007

10/6/1994

7/6/1995

31/5/1995

1/6/95

24/5/1995

7/6/1995

9/6/1994

23/5/1995

8/6/1994

2/10/1992

2/10/1992

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

COLLECTION DATE Not reported

Sample J3, Trench 3 A1, Layer 10, Pass 10, Depth 1.69 m, Charcoal

Square C4, Layer 5, Depth 1.02 m, Charcoal Square G4, Layer 5, Depth 0.820.83 m, Charcoal Square G3, Layer 3, Depth 0.76 m, Charcoal Square F4, Layer 5, Depth 1.22 m, Charcoal Square G5, Layer 5, Depth 0.65 m, Charcoal Square G3, Layer 3, Depth 0.86 m, Charcoal Square F4, Layer 6, Depth 1.23 m, Charcoal Square F4, Layer 6, Depth 1.23 m, Charcoal Square G5, Layer 6, Depth 0.84 m, Charcoal Square G4 Layer, 6, Depth 0.99 m, Charcoal Trench 2, Layer 6, D.:0,82.5, Charcoal

Trench A, Unit 4, Square 14, Depth 430 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 5, Square 14, Depth 390 cm, Charcoal Trench A, Unit 6, Square 11, Depth 580-590 cm, Charcoal Trench B , dark, brown ish clay, Charcoal Square C4, Layer 5, Depth 1.23 m, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Trench A, Unit 5, Square 14, Depth 500-510 cm, Charcoal

62

F. Mavridis, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Georgia Stratouli IZ΄ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

7895  55

6278  25

6499  66

6388  53

6298  28

6173  33

5822  102

5414  119

5323  55

5065  74

4951  45

4529  94

4067  181

12,345 ± 70

11,910 ± 60

10,050 ± 50

9990 ± 50

AGE (yr BP) 9940 ± 60

6910 - 6650 B.C. 7030 - 6640 B.C.

3370 - 3090 B.C. 3520 - 2930 B.C. 3775 - 3663 B.C. 3911 - 3644 B.C. 3960 - 3790 B.C. 4030 - 3700 B.C. 4240 - 4050 B.C. 4330 - 4000 B.C. 4360 - 4060 B.C. 4490 - 3980 B.C. 4790 - 4550 B.C. 4940 - 4460 B.C. 5207 - 5069 B.C. 5219 - 5024 B.C. 5313 - 5227 B.C. 5323 - 5217 B.C. 5470 - 5320 B.C. 5480 - 5230 B.C. 5520 - 5380 B.C. 5610 - 5330 B.C. 5302 ‐ 5227 B.C. 5311 ‐ 5216 B.C.

9660 - 9370 B.C. 9760 - 9310 B.C. 9760 - 9460 B.C. 9870 - 9370 B.C. 11,900 - 11,740 B.C. 12,000 - 11,560 B.C. 12,600 - 12,150 B.C. 12,970 - 12,070 B.C. 2890 - 2350 B.C. 3100 - 2040 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 9650 - 9300 B.C. 9740 - 9280 B.C.

8860 - 8600 (68.3%) 8980 - 8590 (95.4%)

5320 - 5040 (68.3%) 5460 - 4870 (95.4%) 5724 - 5612 (68.3%) 5860 - 5593 (95.4%) 5910 - 5740 (68.3%) 5980 - 5650 (95.4%) 6190 - 6000 (68.3%) 6280 - 5950 (95.4%) 6310 - 6010 (68.3%) 6430 - 5930 (95.4%) 6740 - 6500 (68.3%) 6880 - 6410 (95.4%) 7156 - 7018 (68.3%) 7168 - 6973 (95.4%) 7262 - 7176 (68.3%) 7272 - 7166 (95.4%) 7420 - 7270 (68.3%) 7430 - 7180 (95.4%) 7470 - 7330 (68.3%) 7560 - 7280 (95.4%) 7251 - 7176 (68.3%) 7260 - 7165 (95.4%)

11,600 - 11,320 (68.3%) 11,710 - 11,260 (95.4%) 11,710 - 11,400 (68.3%) 11,820 - 11,320 (95.4%) 13,850 - 13,690 (68.3%) 13,950 - 13,510 (95.4%) 14,550 - 14,100 (68.3%) 14,920 - 14,020 (95.4%) 4840 - 4300 (68.3%) 5050 - 3990 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 11,600 - 11,250 (68.3%) 11,690 - 11,230 (95.4%)

Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2009

Mavridis and Tankosić 2009

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Stratouli et al. 1999

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Sampson et al. 2011

REFERENCES

Idem

CAVE OF LAKES, KASTRIA, KALAVRYTA (37 57´ N. Lat., 22 08´ E. Long.) Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

MEGALO VARATHRO ASTERIOU, KAISARIANI, ATHENS (37 57΄ N. Lat., 23 49΄ E. Long.)

KITSOS CAVE, LAVRION (37 44’ N. Lat., 24 2’ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-1701

DEM-550

DEM-344

DEM-394

DEM-270

DEM-271

DEM-395

DEM-272

DEM-273

OxA-3631

Gif-1283

Gif-1610

Gif-1280

Gif-1670

DEM-549

ANONYMOUS CAVE, SCHISTO, KERATSINI (37 58´ N. Lat., 23 36´ E. Long.)

SITE

OxA-19113

LAB CODE

1968 - 1971

1968 - 1971

1968 - 1971

1968 - 1971

1992

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

2006

COLLECTION DATE 2006

Kitsos 730, Layer 1b, Sepulchral cave near surface Charcoal and ash Kitsos 1610, Layer 3, Sounding 2, Hearth in homogeneous ashy layer corresponding to a dwelling level, Charcoal Kitsos 335, Layer 3a, Sounding 1, Dwelling level, Charcoal Kitsos 1830-31, Layer 4, Hearth Φ 3, Dwelling level, Charcoal

Trench C, Layer 9, Depth 1.851.95 m, Charcoal Trench B1, Layer 3, Depth 0.801.00 m, Charcoal Trench C, Layer 22, Depth 3.803.85 m, Charcoal Trench A2, Layer 13, Depth 1.85-1.95 m, Charcoal Trench A2, Layer 16, Depth 2.30-2.35 m, Charcoal Trench C, Layer 28, Depth 4.804.90 m, Charcoal Trench A2, Layer 21, Depth 3.54-3.60 m, Charcoal Trench A2, Layer 22, Depth 3.88-3.92 m, Charcoal AST 761, Human bone

Sample J7, Trench 1 A/B, Layer 4, Pass 11, Depth 2.37 m, (deepest layer of the excavation), Charcoal Trench C2, Layer 10, Depth 1.95-2.10 m, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Sample J4, Trench 1 A1, Layer 4, Pass 8, Depth 1.86 m, Charcoal

63

Idem

Idem

Idem

A. Bartsiokas Dept. Human Anatomy & Cell Biol., Univ. Liverpool N. Lambert, French School at Athens

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

F. Mavridis, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

4230 - 4056 B.C. 4237 - 4046 B.C. 4324 - 4240 B.C. 4336 - 4173 B.C. 4341 - 4260 B.C. 4366 - 4080 B.C. 4450 - 4080 B.C. 4490 - 4000 B.C. 4341 - 4265 B.C. 4350 - 4252 B.C. 4360 - 4270 B.C. 4445 - 4259 B.C. 4524 - 4457 B.C. 4552 - 4372 B.C. 5560 - 5390 B.C. 5610 - 5370 B.C. 5736 - 5670 B.C. 5786 - 5639 B.C. A.D. 230 - 380 A.D. 130 - 410

5312  29 5396  27

5550 ± 150

5470 ± 150

5350 ± 200

1900 ± 140

1750 ± 60

6829  39

6528  55

5657  32

5484  34

5447  29

5444  105

4460 - 4070 B.C. 4650 - 3970 B.C. 4580 - 4240 B.C. 4720 - 4040 B.C.

4440 - 3960 B.C. 4600 - 3710 B.C.

50 B.C. - A.D. 320 350 B.C. - A.D. 430

9670 - 9310 B.C. 10010 - 9270 B.C.

9978  100

5439  45

CALENDAR DATE 8203 - 7941 B.C. 8215 - 7821 B.C.

AGE (yr BP) 8856  39

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

6410 - 6020 (68.3%) 6600 - 5920 (95.4%) 6530 - 6190 (68.3%) 6670 - 5990 (95.4%)

6390 - 5910 (68.3%) 6550 - 5660 (95.4%)

2000 - 1630 (68.3%) 2300 - 1520 (95.4%)

6273 - 6189 (68.3%) 6285 - 6122 (95.4%) 6290 - 6209 (68.3%) 6315 - 6029 (95.4%) 6390 - 6030 (68.3%) 6440 - 5950 (95.4%) 6290 - 6214 (68.3%) 6299 - 6201 (95.4%) 6309 - 6219 (68.3%) 6394 - 6208 (95.4%) 6473 - 6406 (68.3%) 6501 - 6321 (95.4%) 7510 - 7340 (68.3%) 7560 - 7320 (95.4%) 7685 - 7619 (68.3%) 7735 - 7588 (95.4%) 1720 - 1570 (68.3%) 1820 - 1540 (95.4%)

6179 - 6005 (68.3%) 6186 - 5995 (95.4%)

11620 - 11260 (68.3%) 11960 - 11220 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 10152 - 9890 (68.3%) 10164 - 9770 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Delibrias et al. 1974

Hedges et al. 1993

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Facorellis and Maniatis 1997

Idem

Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2009

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

KLISOURA CAVE, ARGOLIS, EASTERN PELOPONNESE (37 40΄ N. Lat., 22° 55΄ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Gif-1729

Gif-2539

Gif-2538

Gif-2125

Gd-9688

GdA-228

Gd-7893

Gd-10562

Gd-7892

Gd-10715

Gd-10714

P-1663

FRANCHTHI CAVE, PORTO CHELI, ARGOLIS (37 26’ N. Lat., 23 8’ E. Long.)

Idem

Gif-1612

Gif-2541

KITSOS CAVE, LAVRION (37 44’ N. Lat., 24 2’ E. Long.) Idem

SITE

Gif-1832

LAB CODE

1969

1997

1997

1997

1997

1997

Not reported

1997

1968 - 1971

1972

1972

1968 - 1971

1968 - 1971

1972

COLLECTION DATE 1968 - 1971

Hearth structure from the lower part of the Aurignacian layers, Charcoal Hearth 14a, Layer IIIg, Lower Aurignacian, Organic fraction of sediment Hearth 27, Layer IV, Lower Aurignacian, Organic fraction of sediment Hearth 23, Layer IIIg/IIIe, Lower Aurignacian, Organic fraction of sediment Hearth 53, Layer V, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Organic fraction of sediment Hearth 42, Layer V, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Organic fraction of sediment Sample from hearth belonging to Pit H-1, Unit 22, Depth 2.0 m, Charcoal with earth and wood

Ref. B II, d 9, Level 3 Charcoal Kitsos SE 011 exterior, Layer 2 Open pit outside the cave Depth 0.40 - 1.20 m Animal bones Hearth 31, Layer IV, Lower Aurignacian, Organic fraction of sediment

Kitsos 1733, Layer 4, Sounding 2, Hearth Φ 2, Hearth in dwelling level, Charcoal Kitsos 1826, Layer 4, Sounding 2, Charcoal Ref. B I, b 7, Level 4, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Kitsos 2/540, Layer 4, Fireplace, Charcoal Ref. B II, c 8, Level 7, Charcoal

64

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl.

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

M. Koumouzelis, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

N. Lambert, French School at Athens

N. Lambert, CNRS, Paris Idem

Idem

N. Lambert, French School at Athens N. Lambert, CNRS, Paris N. Lambert, French School at Athens

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

36 ± 40

>31,100

>30,800

34,700 ± 1600

32,400 ± 600

31,400 ± 1000

31,150 ± 480

22,500 ± 1000

6800 ± 170

5950 ± 150

5840 ± 150

5750 ± 130

5700 ± 140

5680 ± 150

AGE (yr BP) 5650 ± 130

A.D. 1700 - 1916 A.D. 1691 - 1925

> 34,330 B.C.

> 34,230 B.C.

39,590 - 36,120 B.C. 41,050 - 34,610 B.C.

35,970 - 34,450 B.C. 36,780 - 33,540 B.C.

34,950 - 32,910 B.C. 36,880 - 32,530 B.C.

34,330 - 32,220 B.C. 34,630 - 32,890 B.C.

26,420 - 23,960 B.C. 27,590 - 22,760 B.C.

4770 - 4460 B.C. 4910 - 4350 B.C. 4900 - 4520 B.C. 5190 - 4360 B.C. 5050 - 4620 B.C. 5220 - 4490 B.C. 5880 - 5560 B.C. 6030 - 5390 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 4650 - 4360 B.C. 4800 - 4250 B.C. 4690 - 4370 B.C. 4910 - 4240 B.C. 4710 - 4370 B.C. 4900 - 4270 B.C.

251 - 35 (68.3%) 260 - 25 (95.4%)

> 36,280

> 36,180

41,540 - 38,070 (68.3%) 43,000 - 36,560 (95.4%)

37,920 - 36,400 (68.3%) 38,730 - 35,490 (95.4%)

36,900 - 34,860 (68.3%) 38,830 - 34,480 (95.4%)

36,270 - 35,170 (68.3%) 36,580 - 34,840 (95.4%)

28,370 - 25,910 (68.3%) 29,540 - 24,710 (95.4%)

6720 - 6410 (68.3%) 6860 - 6290 (95.4%) 6850 - 6470 (68.3%) 7140 - 6310 (95.4%) 6990 - 6570 (68.3%) 7170 - 6440 (95.4%) 7830 - 7510 (68.3%) 7980 - 7340 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 6600 - 6300 (68.3%) 6740 - 6200 (95.4%) 6640 - 6320 (68.3%) 6860 - 6190 (95.4%) 6660 - 6320 (68.3%) 6850 - 6210 (95.4%)

Lawn 1971

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Koumouzelis et al. 2001

Karkanas et al. 2004

Koumouzelis et al. 2001

Delibrias et al. 1974

Delibrias et al. 1985 Idem

Idem

Delibrias et al. 1974 Delibrias et al. 1985 Delibrias et al. 1974

REFERENCES

FRANCHTHI CAVE, PORTO CHELI, ARGOLIS (37 26’ N. Lat., 23 8’ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

P-1659

P-1660

P-1630

P-1661

P-1920

P-1537

P-1824

P-1662

P-2235

P-1922

P-2234

I-6128

SITE

P-1658

LAB CODE

1971

1974

1971

1974

1969

1971

1968

1971

1969

1969

1969

1969

COLLECTION DATE 1969

F/F1 (W scarp), Near base of moderate brown occupation layer, Depth 2.55 to 2.62 m, Soil and charcoal F/A Balk, Unit 129N, Dark brown earth, Charcoal with earth F/F1 (W scarp), Near top of grayish occupation layer, Depth 3.30 to 3.40 m, Soil and charcoal F/A Balk, Unit 120N, Reddish brown sediment, Depth 3.0 m, Transition from middle to late Neolithic, Charcoal with sediment

F/A Balk, Unit 137N, Dark brown earth, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 114 N, Depth 2.75-2.80 m, Charcoal with earth

Area F/A, Unit 39, Depth 1.251.55 m, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 72 S, Depth 1.87-1.95 m, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 89 N, Depth 2.24-2.30 m, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 97 N, Depth 2.35-2.40 m, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 83S, Dark reddish gray earth, Charcoal with earth Pit G-1, Unit 11, Depth ca. 2.80/3.36 to 2.80/3.60 m, Charcoal with earth

DESCRIPTION TYPE Sample from hearth in Area F/A, Unit 10, Depth 0.60-0.75 m, Charcoal with earth

65

Idem

Idem

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. T.W. Jacobson, Indiana Univ.

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

Idem

Idem

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. Idem

SUBMITTED

6855 ± 190

6830 ± 60

6790 ± 90

6750 ± 80

6691 ± 81

6670 ± 70

6646 ± 79

6170 ± 60

6156 ± 70

6110 ± 86

5261 ± 64

5163 ± 78

AGE (yr BP) 105 ± 44

5980 - 5620 B.C. 6200 - 5470 B.C.

5760 - 5650 B.C. 5840 - 5630 B.C.

5770 - 5620 B.C. 5880 - 5540 B.C.

5730 - 5570 B.C. 5800 - 5520 B.C.

5670 - 5540 B.C. 5720 - 5490 B.C.

5640 - 5530 B.C. 5710 - 5490 B.C.

5630 - 5520 B.C. 5710 - 5480 B.C.

5210 - 5050 B.C. 5300 - 4960 B.C.

5210 - 5030 B.C. 5300 - 4940 B.C.

5210 - 4940 B.C. 5290 - 4810 B.C.

4050 - 3800 B.C. 4230 - 3780 B.C. 4230 - 3990 B.C. 4260 - 3960 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE A.D. 1691 - 1925 A.D. 1678 - 1940

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

7930 - 7570 (68.3%) 8150 - 7420 (95.4%)

7710 - 7590 (68.3%) 7790 - 7580 (95.4%)

7720 - 7570 (68.3%) 7830 - 7490 (95.4%)

7680 - 7520 (68.3%) 7750 - 7460 (95.4%)

7620 - 7490 (68.3%) 7670 - 7440 (95.4%)

7590 - 7480 (68.3%) 7660 - 7430 (95.4%)

7580 - 7460 (68.3%) 7660 - 7430 (95.4%)

7160 - 7000 (68.3%) 7250 - 6910 (95.4%)

7160 - 6970 (68.3%) 7250 - 6880 (95.4%)

7160 - 6890 (68.3%) 7240 - 6760 (95.4%)

6000 - 5750 (68.3%) 6180 - 5730 (95.4%) 6180 - 5940 (68.3%) 6210 - 5910 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 260 - 25 (68.3%) 273 - 10 (95.4%)

Buckley 1976

Fishman et al. 1977

Lawn 1971

Fishman et al. 1977

Lawn 1971

Lawn 1974

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Lawn 1971

REFERENCES

FRANCHTHI CAVE, PORTO CHELI, ARGOLIS (37 26’ N. Lat., 23 8’ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

P-1399

P-1667

P-1525

P-1392

P-1527

P-2094

P-2095

P-1526

P-1536

P-1921

P-2107

P-2096

SITE

P-2093

LAB CODE

1973

1973

1971

1968

1968

1973

1973

1968

1967

1968

1969

1967

COLLECTION DATE 1973

F/A Balk, Unit 177N, Near top of layer with considerable crushed shell and animal bone (below P-2095), Charcoal with sediment

DESCRIPTION TYPE F/A Balk, Unit 129S, Relatively thin gray occupation layer (overlying P-1526), Charcoal with earth Pit A, Unit 56, Depth ca. 3.95/4.02 to 4.07/4.15 m, Charcoal with earth Pit H, Unit 37 Y, Depth ca. 3.75 m, Charcoal with earth Pit F/F-1, Unit 42 B 1, Depth ca. 4.03/4.16 to 4.07/4.21 m Charcoal with earth Pit A, Unit 63, Charcoal with earth Pit F/F-1, Unit 44 B 5, Depth ca. 4.43/4.47 to 4.58/4.60 m, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 143S, Near middle of relatively thick light gray occupation layer (below P2093), Charcoal with sediment F/A Balk, Unit 146S, Base of relatively thick gray occupation layer (below P-2094), Charcoal with sediment Pit F/F-1, Unit 43 A 1, Depth ca. 4.64/4.66 to 4.77/4.83 m, Charcoal with earth Pit G-1, Unit 22, Depth ca. 4.12/4.60 to 4.39/4.83 m, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 102S, Dark reddish brown earth, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 177N, Charcoal

66

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. Idem

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

8710 ± 100

8530 ± 90

8410 ± 90

8189 ± 78

8022 ± 76

7980 ± 110

7930 ± 100

7897 ± 88

7794 ± 140

7704 ± 81

7278 ± 86

7194 ± 112

AGE (yr BP) 6940 ± 90

7940 - 7600 B.C. 8200 - 7580 B.C.

7650 - 7490 B.C. 7780 - 7350 B.C.

7580 - 7360 B.C. 7600 - 7190 B.C.

7310 - 7080 B.C. 7460 - 7050 B.C.

7070 - 6820 B.C. 7170 - 6690 B.C.

7050 - 6710 B.C. 7240 - 6600 B.C.

7030 - 6690 B.C. 7080 - 6570 B.C.

6900 - 6470 B.C. 7050 - 6430 B.C. 7020 - 6650 B.C. 7060 - 6590 B.C.

6230 - 6060 B.C. 6360 - 6000 B.C. 6600 - 6470 B.C. 6690 - 6420 B.C.

6210 - 5990 B.C. 6360 - 5840 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 5970 - 5730 B.C. 5990 - 5670 B.C.

9890 - 9550 (68.3%) 10,150 - 9530 (95.4%)

9600 - 9440 (68.3%) 9730 - 9300 (95.4%)

9520 - 9310 (68.3%) 9540 - 9140 (95.4%)

9250 - 9030 (68.3%) 9410 - 9000 (95.4%)

9020 - 8770 (68.3%) 9120 - 8640 (95.4%)

9000 - 8660 (68.3%) 9190 - 8540 (95.4%)

8980 - 8640 (68.3%) 9030 - 8520 (95.4%)

8850 - 8420 (68.3%) 9000 - 8380 (95.4%) 8970 - 8600 (68.3%) 9010 - 8540 (95.4%)

8180 - 8010 (68.3%) 8310 - 7950 (95.4%) 8550 - 8420 (68.3%) 8640 - 8370 (95.4%)

8160 - 7940 (68.3%) 8310 - 7790 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 7920 - 7680 (68.3%) 7940 - 7620 (95.4%)

Idem

Lawn 1975

Idem

Idem

Lawn 1971

Idem

Lawn 1975

Lawn 1971

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

REFERENCE S Lawn 1971

FRANCHTHI CAVE, PORTO CHELI, ARGOLIS (37 26’ N. Lat., 23 8’ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

P-1666

P-1518

P-1664

P-1517

P-2228

P-1398

P-2097

P-2229

P-2108

P-1519

P-2104

P-2230

SITE

P-2106

LAB CODE

1974

1973

1968

1973

1974

1973

1967

1974

1968

1969

1968

1969

COLLECTION DATE 1973

F/A Balk, Unit 197S, Depth 7.76 m, (below P-2227 and 2228), Carbonized matter

Pit G/G-1, Unit 60, Depth ca. 7.35/7.68 to 7.35/7.70 m, Charcoal with earth H-1, QuB, Unit 139, Charcoal

F/A Balk, Unit 197N, Small hearth near base of rocky reddish occupation layer (below P-2096), Charcoal with sediment F/A Balk, Unit 197S, Ash lens in dark reddish occupation layer, Depth 7.76 m, (below P2227 and -2228), Charred bone F/A Balk, Unit 218N, Hearth deposit in dark brown occupation layer, Charcoal

Pit H-1, Unit A 117 R, Depth ca. 4.50 m, Charcoal Pit G-1, Unit 46, Depth ca. 6.41/6.69 to 6.47/6.74 m, Charcoal with earth Pit H-1, Unit A 101, Depth ca. 4.23 to 4.30 m, Charcoal with earth Pit G-1, Unit 39, Depth ca. 6.06/6.28 to 6.20/6.43 m, Charcoal with earth F/A Balk, Unit 195S, Depth 7.62 m (below P-2108), Carbonized matter Pit G, Unit 31, Depth ca. 4.47/4.85 to 4.63/4.94 m, Charcoal with earth

DESCRIPTION TYPE F/A Balk, Unit 177N, Charcoal

67

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

Idem

Idem

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. Idem

SUBMITTED

9280 ± 110

9270 ± 110

9264 ± 144

9250 ± 120

9210 ± 110

9150 ± 100

9098 ± 140

9060 ± 110

9034 ± 108

8941 ± 117

8938 ± 100

8742 ± 114

AGE (yr BP) 8730 ± 90

8620 - 8340 B.C. 8780 - 8280 B.C. 8630 - 8340 B.C. 8800 - 8280 B.C.

8700 - 8300 B.C. 9120 - 8230 B.C.

8610 - 8320 B.C. 8790 - 8250 B.C.

8550 - 8300 B.C. 8720 - 8250 B.C.

8530 - 8280 B.C. 8700 - 8030 B.C.

8560 - 8020 B.C. 8710 - 7840 B.C.

8460 - 8000 B.C. 8610 - 7880 B.C.

8420 - 7980 B.C. 8550 - 7840 B.C.

8280 - 7950 B.C. 8420 - 7680 B.C.

7960 - 7610 B.C. 8210 - 7590 B.C. 8260 - 7970 B.C. 8300 - 7750 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 7940 - 7610 B.C. 8200 - 7590 B.C.

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

10,570 - 10,290 (68.3%) 10,730 - 10,230 (95.4%) 10,580 - 10,290 (68.3%) 10,740 - 10,230 (95.4%)

10,650 - 10,250 (68.3%) 11,070 - 10,180 (95.4%)

10,560 - 10,270 (68.3%) 10,740 - 10,200 (95.4%)

10,500 - 10,250 (68.3%) 10,670 - 10,200 (95.4%)

10,480 - 10,230 (68.3%) 10,650 - 9980 (95.4%)

10,510 - 9960 (68.3%) 10,650 - 9790 (95.4%)

10,410 - 9950 (68.3%) 10,550 - 9830 (95.4%)

10,370 - 9930 (68.3%) 10,500 - 9790 (95.4%)

10,230 - 9900 (68.3%) 10,370 - 9630 (95.4%)

9900 - 9560 (68.3%) 10,160 - 9540 (95.4%) 10,210 - 9910 (68.3%) 10,250 - 9700 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 9890 - 9560 (68.3%) 10,150 - 9540 (95.4%)

Fishman et al. 1977

Lawn 1975

Lawn 1971

Lawn 1975

Fishman et al. 1977

Lawn 1975

Lawn 1971

Fishman et al. 1977

Idem

Idem

Idem

Lawn 1971

Lawn 1975

REFERENCES

FRANCHTHI CAVE, PORTO CHELI, ARGOLIS (37 26’ N. Lat., 23 8’ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

P-1522

P-2103

P-2227

P-1665

P-2231

I-6139

P-2232

I-6129

P-1520

P-1923

SITE

P-2102

LAB CODE

1971

1968

1971

1974

1971

1974

1969

1974

1973

1968

COLLECTION DATE 1973

H-1, Unit A181, Dark red earth, Charcoal with earth

F/A Balk, Unit 204S, Red clay deposit with evidence of human occupation, Depth 8.27 m, (below P-2229 and -2230), Charcoal with soil Area H-1, Unit A173, Dark reddish soil, Depth 6.30 m, Above Mesolithic-Paleolithic interface, Charcoal with sediment F/A Balk, Unit 207S, Near base of red clay deposit above rockfall layer, Depth 8.52 m, (below P-2231), Charcoal with soil Area H-1, Unit A175, Top of shell midden, underlying Mesolithic-Paleolithic interface Depth 6.45 m, Charcoal with sediment Pit H, Unit 59 A 1, Depth ca. 7.10 to 7.15 m, Charcoal with earth

DESCRIPTION TYPE H-1, QuB, Unit 126, Hearth deposit in reddish brown occupation layer (below P1665), Charcoal with sediment Pit H, Unit 61 B 1, Depth ca. 4.85/5.07 to 4.90/5.14 m, Charcoal with earth H-1, QuB, Unit 139, Hearth deposit in reddish brown occupation layer, Charcoal with sediment F/A Balk, Unit 195S, Dark reddish occupation layer, Depth 7.62 m (below P-2108), Carbonized matter Pit H-1, Unit A 117 P, Depth ca. 4.50 m, Charcoal with earth

68

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. Idem

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

11,240 ± 140

11,093 ± 260

10,880 ± 160

10,840 ± 510

10,460 ± 210

10,260 ± 110

9477 ± 134

9430 ± 160

9300 ± 100

9298 ± 130

AGE (yr BP) 9290 ± 100

11,330 - 11,020 B.C. 11,430 - 10,810 B.C.

11,250 - 10,760 B.C. 11,550 - 10,590 B.C.

10,980 - 10,660 B.C. 11,190 - 10,600 B.C.

11,350 - 10,110 B.C. 11,840 - 9300 B.C.

10,650 - 10,090 B.C. 10,810 - 9460 B.C.

10,430 - 9820 B.C. 10,570 - 9460 B.C.

9130 - 8620 B.C. 9240 - 8460 B.C.

9120 - 8490 B.C. 9220 - 8340 B.C.

8700 - 8350 B.C. 8790 - 8290 B.C.

8710 - 8340 B.C. 9120 - 8270 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 8740 - 8350 B.C. 8770 - 8290 B.C.

13,280 - 12,970 (68.3%) 13,380 - 12,760 (95.4%)

13,200 - 12,710 (68.3%) 13,500 - 12,540 (95.4%)

12,930 - 12,610 (68.3%) 13,130 - 12,540 (95.4%)

13,300 - 12,060 (68.3%) 13,790 - 11,250 (95.4%)

12,600 - 12,040 (68.3%) 12,760 - 11,410 (95.4%)

12,370 - 11,770 (68.3%) 12,520 - 11,410 (95.4%)

11,080 - 10,570 (68.3%) 11,190 - 10,410 (95.4%)

11,070 - 10,440 (68.3%) 11,170 - 10,290 (95.4%)

10,650 - 10,300 (68.3%) 10,740 - 10,240 (95.4%)

10,650 - 10,290 (68.3%) 11,070 - 10,220 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 10,590 - 10,300 (68.3%) 10,720 - 10,240 (95.4%)

Lawn 1974

Lawn 1971

Buckley 1976

Fishman et al. 1977

Buckley 1976

Fishman et al. 1977

Lawn 1971

Fishman et al. 1977

Lawn 1975

Lawn 1971

Lawn 1975

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

KOUVELEIKI CAVE A’ ALEPOCHORI, LAKONIA (36 57´ N. Lat., 22 46´ E. Long.)

OxA-7641

OxA-7470

OxA-7471

OxA-7599

OxA-7407

OxA-7640

OxA-7469

DEM-263

Idem

I-6140

OxA-7408

Idem

P-2233

ZAS CAVE, NAXOS (37 06΄ N. Lat., 25 33΄ E. Long.)

Idem

P-1827

OxA-7409

FRANCHTHI CAVE, PORTO CHELI, ARGOLIS (37 26’ N. Lat., 23 8’ E. Long.)

SITE

P-1668

LAB CODE

24/6/1992

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

1971

1974

1971

COLLECTION DATE 1969

Zas 1, Trench E4, EC III (Kastri phase)=Zas IV, wood Zas 13a, Trench E4, FN-EC I (rolled rim bowl phase)=Zas IIb, bone Zas 13b, Trench E4, FN-EC I (rolled rim bowl phase)=Zas IIb, shell Zas 15, Trench D5, EC I (Lakkoudhes phase)=Zas III, wood Zas 12, Trench E4, LN (late Saliagos phase)=Zas I, seed Zas 7, Trench E4, LN (late Saliagos phase)=Zas I, grain Zas 10, Trench E4, FN 'AtticKephala'=Zas IIa, grain Zas 11, Trench E4, FN 'AtticKephala'=Zas IIa, seeds Trench Z, No 3, Layer 2, Pass 3, Depth 1.40 m, Compact sediment overlying a hearth, Charcoal

H-1, Unit A199, Reddish brown earth, Charcoal with earth H-1, QuB, Unit 191-192, Redbrown clay matrix with considerable angular gravel, Depth 6.31 m, Soil and carbonized matter Area H-1, Unit A219, Dark red sediment associated with heavy rockfall, Depth 8.80 m, Charcoal with sediment Zas 3, Trench E4, EC III (Kastri phase)=Zas IV, wood

DESCRIPTION TYPE Pit H, Unit 71 B 2-3, Charcoal with earth

69

E. Stravopodi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

K. Zachos, 12th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Idem

Idem

T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ., M.H. Jameson Univ. of Pennsyl. T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ. T.W. Jacobsen, Indiana Univ.

SUBMITTED

5076  230

6145 ± 45

5525 ± 65

5285 ± 40

5245 ± 40

4425 ± 40

4345 ± 40

4010 ± 50

4000 ± 45

3830 ± 40

22,330 ± 1270

21,480 ± 350

12,540 ± 180

AGE (yr BP) 11,930 ± 168

4223 - 3981 B.C. 4229 - 3971 B.C. 4228 - 4044 B.C. 4236 - 3991 B.C. 4450 - 4330 B.C. 4500 - 4260 B.C. 5207 - 5027 B.C. 5217 - 4962 B.C. 4230 - 3640 B.C. 4370 - 3370 B.C.

3265 - 2930 B.C. 3330 - 2920 B.C.

2574 - 2465 B.C. 2664 - 2424 B.C.

2572 - 2472 B.C. 2833 - 2349 B.C. 2580 - 2470 B.C. 2840 - 2350 B.C.

2391 - 2202 B.C. 2460 - 2147 B.C.

26,460 - 23,350 B.C. 28,260 - 22,230 B.C.

13,100 - 12,290 B.C. 13,530 - 12,060 B.C. 24,180 - 23,210 B.C. 24,870 - 22,860 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 12,040 - 11,640 B.C. 12,240 - 11,430 B.C.

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

6172 - 5930 (68.3%) 6178 - 5920 (95.4%) 6177 - 5993 (68.3%) 6185 - 5940 (95.4%) 6400 - 6280 (68.3%) 6450 - 6200 (95.4%) 7156 - 6976 (68.3%) 7166 - 6911 (95.4%) 6180 - 5590 (68.3%) 6320 - 5320 (95.4%)

5214 - 4879 (68.3%) 5279 - 4869 (95.4%)

4523 - 4413 (68.3%) 4613 - 4373 (95.4%)

4521 - 4421 (68.3%) 4782 - 4298 (95.4%) 4528 - 4420 (68.3%) 4790 - 4300 (95.4%)

4340 - 4151 (68.3%) 4409 - 4096 (95.4%)

28,410 - 25,300 (68.3%) 30,210 - 24,180 (95.4%)

15,050 - 14,240 (68.3%) 15,480 - 14,010 (95.4%) 26,130 - 25,160 (68.3%) 26,820 - 24,810 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 13,990 - 13,590 (68.3%) 14,190 - 13,380 (95.4%)

Sampson et al. 1999

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Manning 2008

Buckley 1976

Fishman et al. 1977

Lawn 1974

Lawn 1971

REFERENCES

KOUVELEIKI CAVE A’ ALEPOCHORI, LAKONIA (36 57´ N. Lat., 22 46´ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

KOUVELEIKI CAVE B’ ALEPOCHORI, LAKONIA (36 57´ N. Lat., 22 46´ E. Long.)

Idem

Idem

Idem

DEM-259

DEM-261

DEM-264

DEM-518

DEM-260

DEM-519

DEM-399

DEM-604

DEM-397

DEM-396

SITE

DEM-262

LAB CODE

18/12/1993

27/9/1993

12/6/1996

18/12/1993

29/9/1994

24/6/1992

24/9/1994

24/6/1992

18/9/1992

23/6/1992

COLLECTION DATE 24/6/1992

Square 3,20-3,30, Layer 6-6a, Pass 7, Depth 1.55-1,62 m, Bones #1509, No 2, Square 4,40, Layer 3, Pass 5, Depth 1.65 m, Dark brown sediment, Charcoal #1509, No 3, Square 4,40, Layer 3, Pass 5, Depth 1.65 m, Dark brown sediment, Charcoal

Trench A4, Layer 2, Pass 4, Depth 0.50 m, Fine loose ashy sediment with a lot of stones, Charcoal Trench Z, No 1, Layer 2, Pass 3, Depth 1.40 m, Compact sediment overlying a hearth, Charcoal Trench A, Layer 2, Pass 4, Depth 1.37 m, Compact coarse sediment with ash, Charcoal Trench A3, Layer 3, Pass 4, Depth 0.48 m, Fine loose sediment without stones, Charcoal Trench B2, No 1, Layer 2, Pass 5, Depth 0.50-0.60 m, Fine gray sediment with many big stones, Charcoal Trench A3, Layer 4, Pass 5, Depth 0.52 m, Wet fine relatively compact layer with a lot of organics in the region of hearths, Charcoal #1101, Square 12,50, Depth 1.80 m, Post-depositional disturbed layer, Charcoal

DESCRIPTION TYPE Trench Z, No 2, Layer 2, Pass 3, Depth 1.40 m, Compact sediment overlying a hearth, Charcoal

70

Idem

Idem

C. Kontaxi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

E. Stravopodi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS CALENDAR DATE 4840 - 4080 B.C. 5220 - 3820 B.C.

4790 - 4520 B.C. 4940 - 4370 B.C. 4720 - 4590 B.C. 4790 - 4540 B.C. 4840 - 4550 B.C. 4990 - 4460 B.C. 4797 - 4708 B.C. 4848 - 4617 B.C. 4830 - 4700 B.C. 4930 - 4600 B.C. 4843 - 4749 B.C. 4896 - 4723 B.C.

A.D. 618 - 651 A.D. 596 - 660

3940 - 3710 B.C. 3960 - 3670 B.C. 4230 - 3850 B.C. 4240 - 3800 B.C. 4226 - 3993 B.C. 4232 - 3979 B.C.

AGE (yr BP) 5640  286

5797  115

5807  53

5849  112 5881  43

5885  57

5932  28

1417  24

5017  62 5198  82 5263  45

6175 - 5942 (68.3%) 6181 - 5928 (95.4%)

6180 - 5800 (68.3%) 6190 - 5750 (95.4%)

5890 - 5660 (68.3%) 5910 - 5620 (95.4%)

1332 - 1300 (68.3%) 1355 - 1290 (95.4%)

6792 - 6698 (68.3%) 6845 - 6672 (95.4%)

6780 - 6640 (68.3%) 6880 - 6550 (95.4%)

6746 - 6657 (68.3%) 6797 - 6566 (95.4%)

6790 - 6500 (68.3%) 6940 - 6410 (95.4%)

6670 - 6540 (68.3%) 6740 - 6490 (95.4%)

6740 - 6470 (68.3%) 6880 - 6320 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 6790 - 6030 (68.3%) 7170 - 5770 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Sampson et al. 1999

REFERENCES

SKOINI 3 CAVE, AREOPOLIS, ITYLO BAY (36 41΄ N. Lat., 22° 21΄ E. Long.)

SKOINI 4 CAVE, AREOPOLIS, ITYLO BAY (36 41΄ N. Lat., 22° 21΄ E. Long.) KOLOMINITSA CAVE, AREOPOLIS, ITYLO BAY (36 41΄ N. Lat., 22° 21΄ E. Long.) LAKONIS CAVE, GYTHEION (36 48΄ N. Lat., 22° 36΄ E. Long.)

Beta-193418

Beta-193419

Idem

Idem

Idem

AGHIOS GEORGIOS CAVE, KALITHIES, RHODES (36 20’ N. Lat., 28 10’ Long.) Idem

KOUMELO CAVE, ARCHANGELOS, RHODES (36 12’ N. Lat., 28 8’ E. Long.) Idem

PLATYVOLA CAVE, PLAIN OF KERAMEIA, NE SKOURACHLADA CRETE (35 30΄ N. Lat., 24 00΄ E. Long.)

RT-3845

RT-3844

RT-3846

HD-11343

HD-11342

BM-1815R

HD-11329

HD-11345

Idem

RT-3525

RT-3847

Beta-193416

KOUVELEIKI CAVE B’ ALEPOCHORI, LAKONIA (36 57´ N. Lat., 22 46´ E. Long.)

SITE

DEM-398

LAB CODE

1980

1979

1979

1980

1980

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

COLLECTION DATE 24/9/1993

Trench B, LAN 3, Charcoal with earth Not reported

Trench A, Layer 1, Charcoal with earth Trench A, LAN 4, Charcoal with earth

Trench A, Layer 4, LAN 4, Charcoal with earth

LC143, Unit 1a, Charcoal

LC145, Unit 1b, Charcoal

LC144, Unit 1b, Charcoal

LC143, Unit 1b, Charcoal

LC142, Unit 1a, Charcoal

KOLOM20026, Layer 6, Charred material

SK42002B, Depth 0.85 m, Charred material

SK3200477, Depth 0.77 m, Charred material

DESCRIPTION TYPE #1508, No 1, Square 4,40, Layer 3, Pass 4, Depth 1.45 m, Dark brown compact sediment, Charcoal

71

R. Jones Y. Tzedakis

Idem

Idem

Idem

A. Sampson Univ. of the Aegean

Idem

Idem

Idem

E.Panagopoulou, P. Karkanas, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece Idem

Idem

C. Kontaxi, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of S. Greece A. Darlas, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of N. Greece Idem

SUBMITTED

1320 ± 100

5960 ± 220

4060 ± 95

6220 ± 125

4160 ± 50

44,500 ± 2330

43,335 ± 1800

43,150 ± 1790

39,640 ± 1000

38,240 ± 1160

33870 ± 550

26240 ± 200

25560 ± 190

AGE (yr BP) 5320  48

5210 - 4560 B.C. 5340 - 4370 B.C. A.D. 620 - 860 A.D. 540 - 960

5320 - 5020 B.C. 5470 - 4850 B.C. 2850 - 2480 B.C. 2890 - 2350 B.C.

42,530 - 41,050 B.C. 43,410 - 40,430 B.C. 46,410 - 43,200 B.C. 47,980 - 42,660 B.C. 46,540 - 43,360 B.C. 48,030 - 42,820 B.C. 47,430 - 44,310 B.C. 50,000*- 43,220 B.C. 2870 - 2670 B.C. 2890 - 2590 B.C.

41,720 - 39,980 B.C. 42,820 - 39,330 B.C.

37,580 - 35,880 B.C. 38,440 - 35,230 B.C.

29,170 - 28,830 B.C. 29,260 - 28,590 B.C.

28,690 - 28,280 B.C. 28,940 - 27,750 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 4234 - 4056 B.C. 4321 - 4000 B.C.

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE

7160 - 6540 (68.3%) 7290 - 6320 (95.4%) 1330 - 1100 (68.3%) 1410 - 990 (95.4%)

7270 - 6970 (68.3%) 7420 - 6800 (95.4%) 4800 - 4430 (68.3%) 4840 - 4300 (95.4%)

4820 - 4620 (68.3%) 4840 - 4540 (95.4%)

44,480 - 42,990 (68.3%) 45,360 - 42,380 (95.4%) 48,360 - 45,150 (68.3%) 49,930 - 44,600 (95.4%) 48,490 - 45,310 (68.3%) 49,980 - 44,770 (95.4%) 49,380 - 46,260 (68.3%) 50,000*- 45,170 (95.4%)

43,670 - 41,930 (68.3%) 44,770 - 41,280 (95.4%)

39,520 - 37,830 (68.3%) 40,390 - 37,180 (95.4%)

31,120 - 30,780 (68.3%) 31,210 - 30,540 (95.4%)

30,640 - 30,230 (68.3%) 30,890 - 29,700 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 6183 - 6005 (68.3%) 6270 - 5949 (95.4%)

Bowman et al. 1990

Idem

Idem

Idem

Sampson et al. 1999

Idem

Idem

Idem

Idem

Panagopoulou et al. 2002-2004

Idem

Idem

Darlas and Psathi 2008

Sampson et al. 1999

REFERENCES

Idem

Idem

BM-1816R

BM-1826R

BM-1814R

PLATYVOLA CAVE, PLAIN OF KERAMEIA, NE SKOURACHLADA CRETE (35 30΄ N. Lat., 24 00΄ E. Long.) Idem

SITE

BM-1813R

LAB CODE

1980

1980

1980

COLLECTION DATE 1980

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

DESCRIPTION TYPE Not reported

72

Idem

Idem

Idem

R. Jones Y. Tzedakis

SUBMITTED

YORGOS FACORELLIS

4120 ± 100

4090 ± 100

4070 ± 100

AGE (yr BP) 4020 ± 100

2860 - 2490 B.C. 2890 - 2350 B.C. 2860 - 2500 B.C. 2900 - 2350 B.C. 2870 - 2580 B.C. 2920 - 2460 B.C.

CALENDAR DATE 2860 - 2410 B.C. 2880 - 2290 B.C. 4810 - 4440 (68.3%) 4840 - 4300 (95.4%) 4810 - 4450 (68.3%) 4850 - 4300 (95.4%) 4820 - 4530 (68.3%) 4870 - 4410 (95.4%)

CALIBRATED DATE (yr BP) 4810 - 4360 (68.3%) 4830 - 4240 (95.4%)

Idem

Idem

Idem

Bowman et al. 1990

REFERENCES

CAVE SEDIMENT STUDIES IN GREECE: A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

2

Sherwood 2006). Cave sediments include both clastic and chemical sediments. Clastic sediments derive from the breakdown of the walls of the cave (autochthonous or endogenous sediment) and from the outside (allochthonous or exogenous). Allochthonous clastic sediments enter the cave through a variety of processes like fluvial or stream processes, aeolian activity, and mass wasting processes (debris and mud flows, creep, falls, slumps, etc.). Chemical sediments are mainly in the form of speleothems (stalagmites, stalactites, flowstones, etc.).

Cave Sediment Studies In Greece: A Contextual Approach To The Archaeological Record Panagiotis Karkanas Introduction Sedimentological studies in several prehistoric caves and rockshelters of Greece [Theopetra Cave, Drakaina Cave, Kouveleiki Cave A΄ and B΄, Lakonis Cave Complex, Kleisoura Cave 1, Hagios Haralambos Cave (Gerontomouri Cave)] have been shown to be an indispensable tool for an accurate understanding of the archaeological record. In particular, analysis of microstratigraphy and microstructure of the sequences and examination of the relationship between construction features, sediments and their archaeological findings were essential for interpreting the use of space and structure of sites. This sedimentary contextual analysis was based on the microscopic study of undisturbed sediments, known as soil micromorphology.

Sedimentary Contextual Analysis The study of the sediments in an archaeological cave site is a fundamental issue for understanding how the site was built; however, a sedimentary contextual analysis is needed for interpreting correctly the archaeological record. It is long recognized that to study artifacts without regard to their context is of limited value to archaeological interpretation. The usual approach is to describe all the characteristics of the finds, their spatial arrangement, and finally produce a context out of their differences and similarities. More rarely is investigated the sediment that makes the matrix containing the finds. Sediment, or in everyday language “earth”, in a site is treated as something that usually produces only noise to the archaeological record. But how sediment - that also contains the archaeological finds - has been accumulated at the site? Are the artifacts redeposited during a sheet wash on the site surface and thus they are out of their original context? Are they intentionally discarded in a pit and thus define a new and meaningful context, or are they unintentionally incorporated in a foundation layer? The latter will probably produce a mixed assemblage but totally contextual if we are aware of the process of deposition. Admittedly, knowing the way the deposits have been accumulated in a site will produce a new context for the finds.

Micromorphological studies of cave sediments in Greece have provided new information on the relationship between environmental changes and the cultural history of the sites. In several cases, micromorphology has revealed details of the cultural nature of the caves and improved our knowledge of the behavior of their habitants. Questions related to occupational intensity, domestic and stabling activities, post-depositional changes and cultural modification of the sediments, constructions, and stratigraphic correlation have been satisfactorily addressed along with the analysis of the microstructure of the sediments. In several cases the information gained was used to reassess the other analytical data from charcoal, bone, phytolith and artifact analysis.

Another body of information relies on the content of the sediment. The particles that make the sediment also consist of archaeological finds that are not collected during the excavation procedure, mainly due to their small size. The interesting thing is not the details of the finds (for example pottery style, species of fauna and flora, etc. that might be unidentifiable) but the mere fact of their existence and the particular context in which way it is produced.

Cave Sediments Caves As Sedimentary Traps Caves can act as perfect sedimentary traps protected by many post- depositional sub aerial processes. Cave sedimentary facies have been used to interpret and reconstruct depositional histories, which can track changes in earth system processes (Springer 2004). This can yield insights into the climate and landscape evolution of the area. From the archaeological perspective caves are an example of bounded space. It has been suggested that they provide ready- made natural structures without the need of any significant adaptation of human behavior (Skeates 1997).

Nevertheless, sediments that are thrown away during the excavation do not contain only archaeological finds that were not collected during the excavation. They also contain a wide range of material of equal importance. For example, it usually passes unattended that the primary content of archaeological deposits is ash, although not readily identified by the naked eye if not related to hearths or major burnt accumulations. Ash is primarily a cultural production and thus can carry substantial information. Admittedly, one major component of the archaeological sediment consists of what the

In cave and rockshelter sites sediments from different sources accumulate resulting in complex stratigraphic sequences, but at the same time providing some of the best cases for studying human behavior (Goldberg and

73

PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS archaeologists would rightly call earth, the natural component of the site deposits. But even this material carries a lot of information. It has been deposited in the site by a certain process (natural or anthropogenic) and has sometimes forced archaeological finds to get out of their original context.

Monoliths of 10 x 10 x 40 cm are often collected, but usually blocks of 10 x 10 x 15 cm size are sampled. The samples are oven dried at 50oC for several days and then impregnated with polyester resin diluted with styrene under vacuum. Finally, petrographic thin sections, 20-30 microns thick, are prepared, or polished thin sections using progressively finer diamond pastes. The usual thin sections suitable for micromorphological study are of large format (7 x 5 cm), whereas the polished ones are smaller (46 x 28 mm).

I have tried to show that the sediment is and can produce context. But how can this be revealed? Unfortunately the usual methods employed in sedimentary analysis treat deposits in a quantitative way. A common strategy is systematic geological sampling of the profiles. Bulk samples would be taken back to the laboratory where a variety of analytical methods are used. They include grain size analysis, clay and heavy mineral determination, phosphate content, organic matter and acidity, carbonates, iron content, magnetic susceptibility, and others. Although some of these methods can provide valuable information for strictly naturally deposited layers, they are of limited value in studying cultural deposits. For example, a sample containing only ash that is originally of silt size - that is between 60 and 4 microns - might be misinterpreted as air born material because this is the regular size of dust found in aeolian deposits. Chemical analysis of the same sample will give a high content of calcium that a sedimentologist would like to interpret as a non occupational period since calcium is usually associated with certain soil forming processes, or if we are near a limestone or marble bedrock as a byproduct of weathering of the bedrock. Not to mention the case where ash is mixed with bedrock limestone fragments and at the same time calcium is produced by soil forming processes. In conclusion, we cannot interpret excavated earth by treating it as bulk material, because there is no possibility of unraveling the compound effect of two successive events superimposed on the same material, and we cannot differentiate materials that produce the same analytical measurements (Courty, Goldberg and Macphail 1989). In several excavations specialists are using flotation or other special separating techniques to extract charcoals, pollen, ostracods, microfauna, spores, seeds, or fruits. However, they do not know how these findings look inside the sediment. Are the charcoals associated with other burnt material or with naturally deposited sediment? Are spores and seeds inside layers associated with stabling activities or with burnt remains but not burnt themselves? Without knowing their context the interpretation is not complete.

The finished thin sections are studied with stereomicroscopes and petrographic microscopes at magnifications ranging from 1 to 1000x. Polished thin sections can be studied under SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) to magnifications of several thousand times and at the same time selected spots can be analyzed chemically for their elemental content with microprobe techniques. Under the different type of microscopes the constituents of the archaeological deposits can be recognized, their sizes, shape, and form recorded, but most important their original geometric relationship, that is their fabric, can be seen as preserved in the archaeological site. The fabrics of the sediment are diagnostic of the different mechanisms involved in their formation (Ge et al. 1993). The microscopic approach in studying cave sediments has a wide application in caves with archaeological remains (Goldberg and Sherwood 2006). The demand of a contextual analysis of the archaeological remains has found its implementation in micromorphological analysis. The last few years, micromorphological studies have been conducted in several prehistoric caves and rockshelters of Greece [Theopetra Cave, Drakaina Cave, Kouveleiki Cave A΄ and B΄, Lakonis Cave Complex, Kleisoura Cave 1, Hagios Haralambos Cave (Gerontomouri Cave), and Boila Rockshelter] (Karkanas 2001; 2002; 2006; 2010; Karkanas and Stratouli 2008; Karkanas et al. 1999; 2000; 2004; Woodward et al. 2001; Panagopoulou et al. 2002-2004): 1.For the study of site formation processes 2.For revealing palaeoenvironmental changes in regional or microregional scale to present evidence of climatic changes and to discuss possible impacts of these changes on the occupational history of the sites 3.For addressing geoarchaeological questions related to post-depositional modifications 4.To present examples of resolving on site geoarchaeological problems and facilitating, thus, the interpretation of the cultural nature of the sites

During the last years it has been shown that the most suitable technique to unravel these types of complex problem is micromorphology (Courty, Goldberg and Macphail 1989). The first step in micromorphology is to take an intact, undisturbed and oriented sample during the excavation or from the profiles after the excavation. For doing this, several techniques are employed; like cutting blocks of appropriate dimensions using hammer and chisel in strongly consolidated sediments, or carving blocks using a sharp knife in relatively firm sediment, or applying plaster of Paris on the surface of the carved blocks in loose stony samples. The dimension of the sampled blocks varies according to the type of sediment, the stratigraphy of the site, and the aim of the analysis.

Examples Of Application Of Micromorphology In The Study Of Cave Sites In Greece Stabling Activities During the Neolithic, in the majority of cases, a specialized use of caves by shepherds is assumed. Recent advances in the micromorphological and microscopic

74

CAVE SEDIMENT STUDIES IN GREECE: A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD analysis of stabling layers opened a new dimension in the interpretation of cave use. The micromorphological study can sometimes differentiate between animal species and possibly food sources and grazing processes on the basis of differences in the nature of the components and the structure and arrangement of dung (Akeret and Rentzel 2001; Courty, Macphail and Wattez 1991; Macphail et al. 1997).

limestone fragments. In addition, each layer has its unique proportion of dung and clay components and, in some cases, clear cut contacts. The matrix is well homogenized at a grain size scale, and voids are very few. In one case there is a clay rich finishing coat on the top of a defined layer (Fig. 2.1b). A few clay constructions in the form of small thin platforms were noted in several parts of the interior cave chamber. They are similar to the already described clay rich finishing coats and clay aggregates. The coarser material of the construction consists of silt and sand quartz, quartzite, and schist grains. Based on the microscopic similarities with the clay present in soils in the plain at the front of the cave it can be concluded that this soil material was used for the clay constructions and the finishing coats.

The Late Neolithic Kouveleiki Cave A΄ (Kontaxi, Kotjambopoulou and Stravopodi 1989) provides a good opportunity to study the old problem of the intensive use of caves in Greece during that period, this time using contextual sedimentological analysis, and that is micromorphology (Karkanas 2006). Kouveleiki Cave A΄ is a two chamber cave, a fact that raises the possibility of using the natural segmentation for differential space use.

Thus, for the layered sequence in the interior chamber, on the basis of the presence of well defined levels, each one made of a homogeneous unique mixture of clay and burnt dung, and the extraneous source of the used clay, it is implied that they are plastered floors (Fig. 2.1b). The microscopic features suggest intense wet working of the mixture (kneading) before application. It is also reasonable to assume that most of the burnt dung was provided from the external chamber.

At a microscopic scale, the deposits of the front chamber of Kouveleiki Cave A΄ are composed predominantly of dung fragments with signs of different degrees of burning (Fig. 2.1a). The coprolites were identified by their shape (subrounded surface), compact nature, charred organic and phytolith content and arrangement (occasionally convolute fabric), as well as by the presence of calcium oxalate druses and spherulites (Courty, Macphail and Wattez 1991). The latter are mostly found in herbivore dung (Brochier et al. 1992; Canti 1999); they appear in the form of less than 20 microns spheres with a characteristic black cross under crossed polarizers. The totally burnt dung fragments contain crystals of calcite with relict plant shapes. The observed crude alternation of dark gray and light gray layers is the result of the different content of wood charcoal and, sometimes, of half burnt coprolite fragments that give a darker appearance to the deposit. In the same deposits it was possible to identify two thin in situ combustion zones. They consist of a laminated mixture of wood ash crystals with relict plant shapes intermixed with some burnt dung fragments.

The study of the Kouveleiki Cave A΄ and B΄ (Karkanas 2006) sheds new light into the issue of the observed increase in cave occupation during the Late and Final Neolithic of Greece (Demoule and Perles 1993; Halstead 2000). The front chamber of Kouveleiki Cave A΄ was used as a small seasonal pen and, probably, as a place for rudimentary activities. The dark back chamber of Kouveleiki Cave A΄ was the main habitation area, where plastered floors were constructed by a mixture of burnt dung (derived from the seasonal pen) and red clay (to be found in the plain in front of the cave). The Kouveleiki case presents coherent evidence of a small scale self contained mixed farming household in a marginal area. In this sense, it is generally in agreement with the idea of an expansion of mixed farming communities into areas well endowed with caves (Halstead 1999; 2000).

According to the above evidence, the entrance chamber is an area where dung, most likely of ovicaprines, was frequently burnt, although due to total combustion there are no macroscopic indications of coprolitic material. Seasonal change in the use of the front chamber of the cave is very likely, but there is no clear evidence of domestic occupational activities in it, as the micromorphological study has shown. It is, thus, reasonable to assume that the exterior chamber was used as a seasonal pen (perhaps for special animals, such as very young or milkers) and probably as a place for rudimentary activities (Karkanas 2006).

Lime Plastered Floors Micromorphological analysis of the Drakaina Cave located in the Poros Gorge on the Island of Kefalonia helped to define occupational surfaces induced by human activities (Karkanas and Stratouli 2008). Drakaina Cave comprises Late Neolithic, Final Neolithic (Chalcolithic) and Classical cultural remains (Hatziotou, Stratouli and Kotjambopoulou 1989; Hatziotou and Stratouli 2000). The study reveals that several constructed floors occur in the Late Neolithic sequence. Constructed floors are intentionally made occupational surfaces prepared from selected sedimentary materials and are frequently encountered in Neolithic sites (Goren and Goldberg 1991). The interesting thing in the case of the Drakaina Cave is the identification of lime plaster as the

Dung Plastered Floors In the interior chamber of the same cave (Kouveleiki Cave A΄), several superimposed layers of about 5 cm thickness were defined (Fig. 2.1b). The intact parts consist of a highly homogenized compact mixture of burnt dung material and clay, with some dispersed

75

PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS construction material of floors. Although lime plaster is known as a construction material of floors already from the PPNB (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B) in the Near East (Kingery, Vandiver and Prickett 1988) and has been reported in the Neolithic period of Greece (Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis 1996), there are no data in the literature for the use of plaster in the caves from this period in Greece. At least three lime floors were found in the Drakaina Cave separated from a less coherent material resulting from human activities on the floor surface. The plaster floors have a thickness of about 5 cm and consist usually of superimposed microlayers. Lime floors (Fig. 2.2) consist of a mixture of clay and burnt lime as well as a large amount (30-40%) of lime lumps with signs of incomplete transformation to quicklime during the burning process (Karkanas 2007). Based on the petrographic study the raw material used for the production of lime was the soft Neogene marl and limestone found in the nearby areas of the site. The presence of large amounts of lime lumps as a form of plaster aggregate is most likely the product of traditional “hot mixing” or dry slaking techniques used probably on place and not the product of a mortar mixed with matured putty (Karkanas 2007).

attributed to the reaction of bat or bird guano with the cave walls (Karkanas et al. 2000). The overlying sediment cover is clay that contains angular microscopic fragments of the speleothem alteration cover. It is thus concluded that the speleothems were eroded by the water entering the cave, and fragments of them were incorporated in the fine grained sediment slurry that entered the cave. The sediment cover has been gradually transported and infiltrated through the fractures and conduits of the rock from the top of the hill above the cave. The shape and the form of the sinkhole entrance have prevented the entry of coarser clastic material from the outside area of the cave. It was also observed that a great amount of microscopic fragments of bone are dispersed into the fine grained sediment (Fig. 2.3). The size of the fragments varies from a few tens of microns to several hundreds and locally they take up the 30-40% of the sediment volume. The fragments are rounded implying transport from the upper chambers of the cave. Most likely they are fragments of the spongy material of the bones. It was not possible to locate a lower sublayer deficient of bone fragments. Consequently it is concluded that the sediment cover was formed after the bone deposition. It is also probable that bones were deposited firstly in the upper chambers and then in the lower one. The bones acted as sediment traps and the whole process of the deposition of the sediment should have been very slow. It is thus concluded that the Minoans placed the human bones in clean hard surfaces of the cave (speleothem surfaces) and not on muddy substrates as field observations might indicate.

The material in between the floors consists of raked out hearths (ashes, charcoal, and burnt bones and fragments of lime plastered floors). The heavily destroyed plaster floors and the nature of the incorporated cultural remains might be interpreted as the result of heavy duty occupational activities on the site. Moreover, the fine layering of the plaster floors indicate that great effort was involved in their manufacture and hence a degree of permanence may be suggested.

Palaeolithic Burnt Remains The micromorphological study of the Lakonis Cave Complex near Gythion, in southern Greece, has revealed some new interesting aspects of burnt features during the Palaeolithic period. The site, occupied during the Middle Palaeolithic, preserves a sequence greater that 7 m deep. Preliminary results of radiometric analyses (Panagopoulou et al. 2002-2004) indicate a time span of occupation from the Last Interglacial ca. 125 kyr B.P. (Kyr B.P. = thousand years Before Present. Present) to ca. 40 kyr B.P.

The repeated construction of the lime plaster floors in Drakaina Cave using the same techniques suggests the significance of the site. The particular method of floor construction combined with possible intensive activity at times, lead to the conclusion that the cave and the surrounding environment was of particular importance to the Neolithic community of the area. Funerary Processes This example comes from the Hagios Haralambos Cave (Gerontomouri Cave) in the Lasithi Plain, Crete (Betancourt et al. 2008). The cave was used by the Minoans as place of secondary burials. The Hagios Haralambos Cave (Gerontomouri Cave) is a small blocked inactive sinkhole. The steeply inclined walls of the sinkhole prevented the accumulation of sediment on the surface of the cave. In most places the surface is covered by thick speleothem formations.

The study provides strong evidence that the anthropogenic sedimentation is the major depositional agent of the upper part of the site. The sequence is dominated by in situ or reworked hearths and burnt areas very rich in ashes, charcoal, and burnt bones. The anthropogenic additions and modifications have overprinted any natural sedimentation processes. Most of the above features are not readily discerned with the naked eye since the sediments are strongly cemented with calcite, and have thus developed a homogenous aspect. However, most of the original combustion features are still visible under the microscope (Fig. 2.4). Cementation is mainly due to the recrystallization of the calcitic ash crystals but not to the extent to eliminate relict plant shapes in the form of calcite cellular pseudomorphs (Fig.

In the areas where the human skeleton remains are located there is thin sediment cover, normally a few centimeters thick. Under the microscope it was possible to observe that the speleothem basement was chemically altered before the accumulation of the sediment cover. This alteration is frequently observed in caves and is

76

CAVE SEDIMENT STUDIES IN GREECE: A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 2.4). The material also comprises a mixture of charcoal fragments, bones showing different degrees of burning, and burnt and unburnt soil lumps.

The use of clay in the beginning of the Aurignacian period in the Kleisoura Cave 1, Greece, at about 32-34 kyr B.P., precedes the manufacture of clay figurines and kilns in Dolni Vestonice and the Middle Danube Gravettian (Pavlovian) dated to 26 kyr B.P. (Vandiver et al. 1989) The hearth skills that are revealed in Kleisoura Cave 1 provide new information on the social life in the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic period.

The macroscopic and microscopic features of the hearth complex give some important information on the history of the combustion processes. White pure ashy layers are the product of in situ undisturbed burning of mostly wood fuel, whereas the material in between represents disturbed burnt remains by biological and anthropogenic activities. The preservation of the erosional surfaces on the upper contact of the ashy layers suggests that they were at least locally consolidated before they were covered by the overlying sediment, which also contains fragments from below. The preservation of the intact ashy layers and their initial consolidation suggests absence of severe trampling and probably the intermittent use of the area. The occurrence of heavily burnt bone fragments inside the intact pure ash layers suggests that they were thrown intentionally in the fire but their relative moderate amounts do not justify their use as a fuel component (Thery-Parisot 2002).

Environmental Changes The environmental evidence revealed by the study of site formation processes can be used as an indicator of climatic changes. An example of direct evidence of past climatic changes comes from the micromorphological study of the Theopetra Cave, which is located in the northwestern edge of the Thessaly Plain near Kalambaka. The 6 m sedimentary sequence of the cave comprises stratified Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic cultural remains (KyparissiApostolika, ed., 2006). The micromorphological study of the sediments provides a detailed record of climatic changes during the Upper Pleistocene central Greece (Karkanas 2001). The information is based on evidence for the existence of several discrete episodes of freeze thaw activity that have affected the sediments of the cave. The freeze thaw activity produced platy and spherical microstructures (Fig. 2.6) as a result of the transformation of the soil water to ice and the concomitant production of stresses within the sediment. Such cryogenic alterations are the result of seasonal freezing temperatures, well below 0oC (van Vliet-Lanoë, Coutard and Pissard 1984). What is even more important is that the anthropogenic remains in the form of superimposed ash layers are found only in between the cryogenically altered sediments. The latter are mostly the product of natural processes (water lain sediments). On the basis of the new series of thermoluminescence dates produced on burnt chert artifacts (Valladas et al. 2007) it seems that the site was occupied only during the Last Interglacial and major interstadials of the Last Glacial and consequently natural sedimentation was the dominant site formation process at the site.

Evidence Of The First Use Of Clay In The Palaeolithic Period The Kleisoura Cave 1 is a complex of a rockshelter and a small collapsed karstic cave located in a gorge at the northern edge of the Argive Plain in northwestern Peloponnese. The Kleisoura Cave 1 preserves a long cultural sequence spanning the periods between the Middle Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic (Koumouzelis et al. 2001a; 2001b; Stiner et al. 2010). The Aurignacian layers of Kleisoura Cave 1 contain several basin like clay lined structures (Fig. 2.5a). Macroscopic features like constant shape and dimensions, and microscopic features including straight, smooth boundaries and lack of erosional contacts, internal massive microstructure with rounded vesicles, a homogeneous extraneous source of the construction material and lack of cave sediment admixtures (Figs. 2.5b, 2.5c), all indicate an intentional use of clay for the preparation of the structures (Karkanas et al. 2004; Karkanas 2010).

Post Depositional Alterations

The study of the microstructure of the clay material suggests that the clay was brought to the site and after wetting it was puddled and shaped in place. The source of the material used for the clay structures was most likely clay enriched soils from the floodplain in front of the Kleisoura Cave 1.

One of the most important contributions of micromorphology to archaeology is the resolution of post-depositional history of a site. This, in turn, can be used to understand aspects of the taphonomy of the cultural material and provide information on the cultural history of the site. The studied Greek sites provide several such examples.

Application of micromorphological, thermoanalytical and spectrophotometric techniques suggest that the clay structures were heated to temperatures of 400 to 600 oC (Karkanas et al. 2004). In addition to the lower temperature of heating, the association of the clay structures with undisturbed, microscopically intact wood ashes and food remains implies that they were used as hearth structures for cooking purposes.

The case of the Theopetra Cave is an example of how powerful micromorphology is, as a tool in resolving problems related to post-depositional alteration. Several studies have already defined not only the observed chemical alteration of the sediments, but also formulated the theoretical basis for understanding the sequence of

77

PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS events and the processes involved (Karkanas et al. 1999; 2000). Preparing polished thin sections facilitated the identification of the alteration pattern. It was thus possible to study them in increasing detail from the naked eye to the stereomicroscope and to the petrographic and the electron microscope. Consequently, elemental analysis was performed on the same thin section. It was possible, thus, to define the chemistry of every feature observed in the field, or in the different microscopes without losing information related to the spatial arrangement of the feature to the surrounding sediment and structures. The detailed mapping of the distribution of the alteration minerals allowed for the reconstruction of the chemical palaeoenvironment prevailing at the site. This, in turn, can be used to determine whether the primary anthropogenic remains (bone, teeth, ash, phytoliths, organic matter, etc.) could have been affected by chemical alteration. It would be, thus, possible to recognize environments where some of the primary anthropogenic constituents are absent because they were never incorporated in the archaeological record, as

opposed to being absent or partially altered, because they were subject to diagenesis (Karkanas et al. 2000). Conclusion From the examples presented in this article it becomes obvious that micromorphology is a suitable technique to assess the cultural nature of a cave site. Occupational intensity, post-depositional alteration, pastoral activities, cultural modifications of the sediments, or constructions not discerned by the naked eye are readily studied by micromorphology. With the information gained from the micromorphological study of the site formation processes we can reassess the other analytical data from charcoal, bone, phytolith and artifact analysis. In addition micromorphological studies in cave sediments provide not only information on palaeoenvironmental changes but also part of their impact on human occupation and activities.

78

CAVE SEDIMENT STUDIES IN GREECE: A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD Bibliography

Frederick, eds., (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 3), Sheffield, pp. 110-128.

Akeret, Ö. and P. Rentzel. 2001. “Micromorphology and Plant Macrofossil Analysis of Cattle Dung from the Neolithic Lake Shore Settlement of Arbon Bleiche 3,” Geoarchaeology 16, pp. 687-700.

Hatziotou, E.M. and G. Stratouli. 2000. “To Σπήλαιο της Δράκαινας στον Πόρο Κεφαλονιάς, in Στοιχεία για την Προϊστορική Xρήση του Σπηλαίου και για τη Χρήση του ως Χώρου Λατρείας στους Ιστορικούς Χρόνους (Πεπραγμένα του 6ου Πανιόνιου Συμποσίου, Zάκυνθος 23-27 Σεπτεβρίου 1997), Thessaloniki, pp. 61-76.

Andreou, S., M. Fotiadis and K. Kotsakis. 1996. “Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece,” AJA 100, pp. 537-597.

Hatziotou, E.M., G. Stratouli and E. Kotjampopoulou. 1989. “Η «Σπήλαιο της Δράκαινας». Πρόσφατη έρευνα στον Πόρο Κεφαλονιάς (1992-1993),” AAA 22 [1995], pp. 31-60.

Betancourt, P.P., C. Davaras, H.M.C. Dierckx, S.C. Ferrence, J. Hickman, P. Karkanas, P.J.P. McGeorge, J.D. Muhly, D.S. Reese, E. Stravopodi, and L. LangfordVerstegen. 2008. “Excavations in the Hagios Haralambos Cave: A Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 77, pp. 539-605.

Karkanas, P. 2001. “Site Formation Processes in Theopetra Cave: A Record of Climatic Change during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in Thessaly, Greece,” Geoarchaeology 16, pp. 373-399.

Brochier, J.E., P. Villa, M. Giacomarra, and A. Tagliacozzo. 1992. “Shepherds and Sediments: Geoethnoarchaeology of Pastoral Sites,” JAnthArch 11, pp. 47-102.

———. 2002. “Micromorphological Studies in Greek Prehistoric Sites: New Insight in the Interpretation of the Archaeological Record,” Geoarchaeology 17, pp. 237259.

Canti, M.G. 1999. “The Production and Preservation of Faecal Spherulites: Animals, Environments and Taphonomy,” JAS 26, pp. 251-258.

———. 2006. “Late Neolithic Household Activities in Marginal Areas: The Micromorphological Evidence from the Kouveleiki Caves, Peloponnese,” Greece, JAS 33, pp. 1628-1641.

Courty, M.A., P. Goldberg and R.I. Macphail. 1989. Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology, Cambridge. Courty, M.A., R.I. Macphail and J. Wattez. 1991. “Soil Micromorphological Indicators of Pastoralism, with Special Reference to Arene Candide, Finale Ligure, Italy,” RStLig 57, pp. 127-150.

———. 2007. “Identification of Lime Plaster in Prehistory Using Petrographic Methods: A Review and Reconsideration of the Data on the Basis of Experimental and Case Studies,” Geoarchaeology 22, pp. 775-796.

Demoule, J.-P. and C. Perlès. 1993. “The Greek Neolithic: A New Review,” JWP 7, pp. 355-416.

Karkanas, P. 2010. “Geology, Stratigraphy and Site Formation Processes of the Upper Palaeolithic and Later Sequence in Kleisoura Cave 1,” Eurasian Prehistory 7 (2), pp. 15-36.

Ge, T., M.A. Courty, W. Matthews and J. Wattez. 1993. “Sedimentary Formation Processes of Occupation Surfaces,” in Formation Processes in Archaeological Context, P. Goldberg, D.T. Nash and M.D. Petraglia, eds., (Monographs in World Archaeology 17), Madison, pp. 149-163.

Karkanas, P., N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, O. Bar-Yosef, and S. Weiner. 1999. “Mineral Assemblages in Theopetra, Greece: A Framework for Understanding Diagenesis in a Prehistoric Cave,” JAS 26, pp. 1171-1180.

Goldberg, P. and S.C. Sherwood. 2006. “Deciphering Human Prehistory through the Geoarchaeological Study of Cave Sediments,” Evolutionary Anthropology 15, pp. 20-36.

Karkanas, P., O. Bar-Yosef, P. Goldberg, and S. Weiner. 2000. “Diagenesis in Prehistoric Caves: The Use of Minerals that Form in situ to Assess the Completeness of the Archaeological Record,” JAS 27, pp. 915-929.

Goren, Y. and P. Goldberg. 1991. “Petrographic Thin Sections and the Development of Neolithic Plaster Production in Northern Israel,” JFA 18, pp. 131-138.

Karkanas, P., M. Koumouzelis, J.K. Kozlowski, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, F. Berna, and S. Weiner. 2004. “The Earliest Evidence for Clay Hearths: Aurignacian Features in Kleisoura Cave 1, Southern Greece,” Antiquity 78, pp. 513-525.

Halstead, P. 1999. “Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2), Sheffield, pp. 77-95.

Karkanas, P. and G. Stratouli. 2008. “Neolithic Lime Plastered Floors in Drakaina Cave, Kefalonia Island, Western Greece: Evidence of the Significance of the Site,” BSA 103, pp. 27-41.

———. 2000. “Land Use in Post-Glacial Greece: Cultural Causes and Environmental Effects,” in Landscape and Land Use in Post-Glacial Greece, P. Halstead and C.

79

PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS Kingery, W.D., P.B. Vandiver and M. Prickett. 1988. “The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II: Production and Use of Lime and Gypsum Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East,” JFA 15, pp. 219-244.

Skeates, R. 1997. “The Human Uses of Caves in Eastcentral Italy during the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age,” in The Human Use of Caves, C. Bonsall and C. Tolan-Smith, eds., (BAR-IS 667), pp. 79-86.

Kontaxi, C.X., E. Kotjampopoulou and E. Stravopodi. 1989. “Προκαταρκτική Έκθεση Ανασκαφών στην «Α΄ Κουβελέϊκη Σπηλιά» Αλεποχωρίου Λακωνίας,” AAA 22 [1995], pp. 21-30.

Springer, G.S. 2004. “Clastic Sediments in Caves,” in Encyclopedia of Caves, D.C. Culver and W.B. White, eds., Amsterdam, Boston and London, pp. 102-108. Stiner, M., J. Kozłowski, S. Kuhn, P. Karkanas, and M. Koumouzelis. 2010. “Kleisoura Cave 1 and the Upper Paleolithic of Southern Greece in Cultural and Ecological Contexts,” Eurasian Prehistory 7 (2), pp. 309-321.

Koumouzelis, M., B. Ginter, J. Kozlowski, M. Pawlikowski, O. Bar-Yosef, R.M. Albert, M. LitynskaZajac, E. Stworzewicz, P. Wojtal, G. Lipecki, T. Tomek, Z.M. Bochenski, and A. Pazdur. 2001a. “The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: The Excavations in Kleisoura Cave,” JAS 28, pp. 515-539.

Thery-Parisot, I. 2002. “Fuel Management (Bone and Wood) During the Lower Aurignacian in the Pataud Rock Shelter (Lower Palaeolithic, Les Eyzies de Tayac, Dordogne, France). Contribution of Experimentation,” JAS 29, pp. 1415-1421.

Koumouzelis, M., J. Kozlowski, C. Escutenaire, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, H. Valladas, N. Tisnerat-Laborde, P. Wojtal, and B. Ginter. 2001b. “La Fin du Paléolithique Moyen et le Début du Paléolithique Supérieure en Grèce: La Séquence de la Grotte 1 de Kleisoura,” L’Anthropologie 105, pp. 469-504.

Valladas, H, N. Mercier, L. Froget, J.-L. Joron, J.-L. Reyss, P. Karkanas, E. Panagopoulou, and N. KyparissiApostolika. 2007. “TL Age-estimates for the Middle Palaeolithic Layers at the Theopetra Cave (Greece),” Quaternary Geochronology 2, pp. 303-308.

Kyparissi-Apostolika, N., ed. 2006. Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998 (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), (2nd ed.), Athens.

van Vliet-Lanoë, B., J.-P. Coutard and A. Pissard. 1984. “Structures Caused by Repeated Freezing and Thawing in Various Loamy Sediments: A Comparison of Active, Fossil and Experimental Data,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 9, pp. 553-565.

Macphail, R.I., M.A. Courty, J. Hather, and J. Wattez. 1997. “The Soil Micromorphological Evidence of Domestic Occupation and Stabling Activities,” in Arene Candide: A Functional and Environmental Assessment of the Holocene Sequences Excavated by L. Bernabo Brea (1940-1950), R. Maggi, ed., (Memoire dell'Instituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana n.s. 5), Rome, pp. 53-88.

Vandiver, P.B., O. Soffer, B. Klima, and I. Svoboda. 1989. “The Origin of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia,” Science 246, pp. 1002-1008. Woodward, J.C., R.H.B. Hamlin, M.G. Macklin, P. Karkanas, and E. Kotjabopoulou. 2001. “Quantitative Sourcing of Slackwater Deposits at Boila Rockshelter: A Record of Lateglacial Flooding and Palaeolithic Settlement in the Pindus Mountains, Northwest Greece,” Geoarchaeology 16, pp. 501-536.

Panagopoulou, E., P. Karkanas, G. Tsartsidou, E. Kotjabopoulou, K. Harvati, and M. Ntinou. 2002-2004. “Late Pleistocene Archaeological and Fossil Human Evidence from Lakonis Cave, Southern Greece,” JFA 29, pp. 323-349.

80

CAVE SEDIMENT STUDIES IN GREECE: A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

Figure 2.1. a) Photomicrograph of burnt dung deposits from the external chamber of Kouveleiki Cave A showing dark fragments of sheep/goat coprolites inside gray wood ash crystals and pseudomorphic cellular wood structures (plane polarized light). b) Photograph of thin section of a sample with three superimposed constructed floors (1, 2 and 3) from the interior chamber of Kouveleiki Cave A. The black arrow shows the sharp upper contact of plastered floor 2 and the white arrow a clay rich finishing coat of plastered floor 3.

Figure 2.3.Agios Haralambos Cave, Lasithi, Crete. Photomicrograph of clayey sediment containing rounded and sub-rounded human bone fragments (some labeled with B) and vesicle pores (V) (plane polarized light).

Figure 2.2. Photomicrograph of a lime plastered floor from Drakaina Cave, Poros, Kefalonia. The floor is composed of grayish fine micritic lime and large amount of lime lumps (half reacted lime). Also shown is a dense system of shrinkage fractures (plane polarized light).

81

PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS

Figure 2.4.Photomicrograph of cemented ash from Lakonis Cave Complex. Grey wood ash crystals and pseudomorphic cellular wood structures (middle of the photograph) embedded in white calcitic cement (plane polarized light).

Figure 2.6. Photomicrograph of sediment from Theopetra Cave affected by frost. The sediment has a lenticular microstructure produced by repeated freeze-thaw activity (plane polarized light).

Figure 2.5.Constructed clay hearths from Kleisoura Cave 1. a) Photograph from the excavation of the lower part of the Aurignacian sequence of Kleisoura Cave 1 presenting wellpreserved superimposed clay structures. b) Photomicrograph of the upper contact (with arrow) showing light gray ash crystals impregnating the underlying clay structure. Note the dark appearance of the clay aggregates due to burning (crossed polarized light) and the white speckled chert inclusions (CH). c) Lower contact (with arrow) between the dense clay structure and the underlying porous burnt remains (plane polarized light).

82

CAVES AND FOSSILS: PALAEONTOLOGY IN GREEK CAVES AND FISSURES Humans, particularly prehistoric man, are also bone accumulation agents in caves. Anthropogenic sedimentation is the net addition of materials to the sedimentary record. Admixtures to the cave floor sediment, such as stone tools, stone tool manufacturing debris, food remains or evidence of food processing, are very important, since in many cases they are the key for the reconstruction of the behavior of ancient man. In many sites they provide the only evidence that prehistoric man lived in the cave. Penecontemporaneous modification of existing cave floor sediments by humans include trampling, hearth rake out and dumping of ash. Hearths, ashes and burned bone in particular, are diagnostic of, and can provide important information on, past human behavior. The hearths and ashy layers in the sediments are usually in oval or circular shaped lens of material distinct from the associated sediment.

3 Caves And Fossils: Palaeontology In Greek Caves And Fissures Alexandra A.E. van der Geer and Michalis D. Dermitzakis Introduction* Caves are essentially closed environments. They provide a uniform and stable temperature and humidity environment. Caves also have a time limit, a beginning when they are first formed, and an end when they are filled with sediment or collapsed. Finally, caves can be sealed off for extensive periods of time. Because of theses characteristics, caves can provide a uniquely favorable environment for preservation of fossil animal and plant species. Moreover, these factors facilitate the taphonomic and palaeoecological reconstruction as well as the biochronological assessment of the faunal assemblages enclosed in cave sediments.

Faunal analysis of mostly ungulate bone remains in caves can reveal their hunters, (the case of Neandertal versus hyena in Kebara Cave, Israel) or can reveal who was the prey and who were the hunters (the case of the South African Australopithecine caves). Caves and fissures play an important role in vertebrate palaeontology (Sutcliffe et al. 1976; Andrews 1990). They function as traps for sediments and organic material. In addition, caves are often shelter or living places for early humans. But they were not only inhabited by humans. Animals too, found shelter there against the influences of weather or to escape from danger. Famous examples are the cave hyenas (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) and the cave bears (Ursus spelaeus), as is evident from their scientific (sub) species name: spelaea, from the Greek word for cave. Their petrified remains, found in caves, are the evidence. Humans, either living in the cave or visiting it, found these remains and gave their own interpretation: dragon bones (Dermitzakis and Papadopoulou 1989). Other animals had a less fortunate end: they were dragged into the cave as prey.

Principal physical bone accumulation factors in caves include water, flow of mud, lava flow or wild fire. Flood waters and mud flow entering caves will occasionally wash in animal or plant remains laying or dying in the catchments around the cave entrances. The main result of water flow within caves is to disperse rather than concentrate bones. Biogenic agents responsible for bone accumulation in caves include: 1. Animals that live or take shelter in caves. They either die there, such as, e.g., hibernating bears, or leave behind evidence of their presence in the form of bioturbation. Bioturbation in sediments is caused in large scale by cave inhabitants, such as porcupines and hyenas. Insects cause microscopic obliteration of original stratigraphic features, such as bedding or contacts of lithological 2. Animals fall in by accident. Pit caves may trap animals that wander too close to the edge. units. Other cave inhabitants, such as bats or birds can also leave evidence of bioturbation, 3. Animals killed or scavenged by predators and taken in the cave. Many predators such as owl, porcupine, hyena, leopard and other carnivores, live in or near the entrances of caves and the bones of their prey may be found in caves as uneaten remains or in regurgitated pellets or in their wastes.

Fossils found in caves tell us several things (Dermitzakis 1977): 1. They record the evolutionary history of animals and their biogeography 2. They inform about past ecosystems and climatic fluctuations 3. They tell us about human activity of the past Caves and rockshelters are so to say archives of environmental change (Woodward and Goldberg 2001). The fossils found in Greek caves do not only tell us about evolution of animals and man, but are also an important tool in reconstructing the palaeogeography of this tectonically extremely active area (Dermitzakis and Sondaar 1978; Sondaar, de Vos and Dermitzakis 1986; Dermitzakis 1990; Dermitzakis and Anastasakis 1990; Sondaar, Dermitzakis and de Vos 1996).

                                                             *

We would like to thank the editors Jesper Tae Jensen and Fanis Mavridis for cordially inviting us to write an article in this anthology. We further wish to thank colleagues in the field with whom we excavated in Mediterranean caves, especially the late Paul Sondaar (Utrecht, the Netherlands), John de Vos (Naturalis, the Netherlands), George Theodorou (University of Athens), and Joseph Alcover (Palma de Mallorca). Thanks are also due to George Lyras (University of Athens) for making the plates.

83

ALEXANDRA A.E. VAN DER GEER AND MICHALIS D. DERMITZAKIS The Importance Of Caves For Palaeontology The first relates to the presence of animals that may have lived or sheltered in the cave, such as humans, hyenas, leopards, bears, owls, bats, porcupines, foxes, and badgers. Typical for this kind of fossils are that they are in principle complete and undamaged, although often they are damaged due to trampling. Not only petrified remains of the cave users themselves constitute evidence of past life. The animals or humans may also have left behind evidence of their presence in the form of what is called bioturbation. Especially porcupines and hyenas are the cause of large-scale bioturbation. Insects and invertebrates are the cause of microscopic bioturbation, in the form of obliteration of original stratigraphic features, such as beddings or contacts of lithological units. Products of cave dwelling animals can fossilize, too. Practically speaking, these are the bird and bat droppings (guano layers) and the petrified droppings (coprolites) of other animals. The palaeontological evidence for life in caves thus consists of bones, trails, disturbances in stratigraphy, and excrements.

Caves appear to constitute one of the most important sources for fossilized remains in Greece and adjacent karstic areas. Why is that so? The reason is that caves provide a uniquely favorable environment for the preservation of fossil animal and plant remains. First of all, caves have a uniform and stable temperature and humidity. They are essentially closed environments, buffered within a huge mass of isolating rock. Therefore, they can preserve remains of past life for thousands of years, as if in a natural refrigerator. Secondly, they are often sealed off for extensive periods of time, due to collapse of an entrance or because of complete filling with sediments. The preserved remains are thus undisturbed and safeguarded against damage from outside, as if in a natural safe or treasure box. The fact that caves often have a time limit - a beginning when they are first formed and an end when they are filled with sediment or collapsed (Andrews 1990) - makes caves even more important for palaeontology. In this way, they provide a snapshot of geological time. They present a particular unit in the history of life, undisturbed by previous or following life forms.

The second main source of fossils in caves and fissures are the remains of prey animals in the broad sense. Many predators live in or near the entrance of caves, and they bring prey remains into the cave, as complete or partial carcass. Especially hyenas (Buckland 1823; Sutcliffe 1973; Maguire, Pemberton and Collett 1980; Brain 1981) and leopards (Simons 1966; Brain 1981) accumulate large quantities. A special case is provided by porcupines, which are notorious for collecting and extensively chewing bones to sharpen their incisors. They may bring significant amounts of bare bones to their cave (Maguire, Pemberton and Collett 1980; Brain 1981). Also owls are an important accumulating factor. These birds of prey have the habit to regurgitate processed remains of their prey as pellets. Cave dwelling owls leave a considerable amount of pellets during their life. These pellets are full of bones, bone fragments and teeth of small mammals, like mice, voles, and hamsters. When petrified, these micromammalian remains sometimes constitute a fossiliferous layer. Owls are probably the major contributors to fossil micromammalian assemblages, especially barn owls (Andrews 1990). Humans provide another special case. They, too, sometimes brought bones or prey animals to the cave, either to make tools or other objects, or simply to eat them. Typical for all these kinds of fossils are that they are incomplete, often broken, gnawned, chewned and/or trampled. Not all elements of an animal need to be represented.

There is another factor, which makes caves so important for palaeontology. Fossiliferous sediments in caves often contain large numbers of micromammalian remains. These small mammals are important palaeoenvironmental indicators, because most of the species are very particular for the type of environment they live in. When the local climatic conditions change, they get locally extinct and, if possible, shift their range. Cave sediments are so to say archives of environmental change (Woodward and Goldberg 2001). Caves on islands are of even greater importance for palaeontology than on the mainland (Dermitzakis 1977; Sondaar 1991). Here, caves are usually the only places where fossil vertebrates can be found, because large lake and fluvial deposits are usually lacking on islands. The bedrock in which caves are formed is typically limestone or dolomite for the Aegean and Anatolian Mediterranean region. This type of rock developed over millions of years when these regions were covered with shallow seas. The bedrock itself often contains fossils of organisms that lived in these seas, but although these fossils, too, belong to the realm of palaeontology, they have nothing to do with the cave fossils, which are the focus of this article.

The third main source for palaeontological remains in caves and fissures is the passive transport of animals from outside. Water, either in the form of a stream, rain fall or a mud flow, may transport animal remains. Especially in karstic areas such as Greece, these remains get stuck somewhere in fissures and caves. Typical for this kind of fossils is that they are incomplete and often damaged. The main result of water flow is to disperse elements rather than concentrate them (Glover et al. 1964). Animals can also simply fall into a fissure or become trapped, for

Fossil Accumulation In Caves Generally speaking, there are three main causes of the presence of palaeontological material in caves and fissures: 1. Remains of cave dwelling animals 2. Remains that were actively brought into the cave 3. Remains that were passively transported into the cave

84

CAVES AND FOSSILS: PALAEONTOLOGY IN GREEK CAVES AND FISSURES instance in a pitfall trap in a cave (Dawkins 1874; Morris 1974). A natural trap cave is like an inverted funnel, with a narrow opening at ground level leading down to a large underground chamber with steep, overhanging walls. Mainly the younger, less experienced animals happen to fall into such traps (Andrzejewski and Rajska 1972). Another group of pitfall victims are the carnivores, which are attracted by the captive or already dead prey and then cannot get out by themselves again (Morris 1974). Typical for this kind of fossils is that they are remarkably complete unless damaged by trapped predators. If transport of bones took a long way through the fissure system, the individual elements of a skeleton are scattered and sorted as in the case of water transport.

trine deposit in case the whole area gets submerged. Later, after re-emergence of the area, a second erosion cycle (neokarst) starts in the new deposits above the old karstic system (palaeokarst). The buried palaeokarst may be afflicted as well, in due time, but for a certain span of time, the palaeokarst is preserved, where the Gargano Promontory of south Italy’s east coast provides a good example. The palaeokarst is attributed to the Late Miocene (Tertiary), whereas the neokarst is Pleistocene-Holocene (Quaternary) in age.In rare cases, the stratigraphic range of a cave covers long temporal ranges, for example Cova de Canet (Mallorca, Spain), where the record spans over 1.8 million years. In the majority of caves, however, the time span is at maximum a few hundred thousand years.

Sedimentation In Caves

Cave sediments can be, as all sediments, assigned to a relative age and an absolute age. Relative ages are provided by stratigraphic sequences of the site itself, complemented by data of the (sub) fossil flora and fauna, recent flora and fauna, and in the case of an anthropogenic factor, artifact types. Absolute age, or chronometric age, is obtained by analyzing the sediment using a number of physical/chemical methods (Table 3.1). The more commonly used methods are radiocarbon, uranium series, luminescence, and electron spin resonance dating (Schwarcz and Rink 2001). Palaeomagnetism does not provide an absolute date, but only an age limit. In combination with another technique, the method may be useful. Argon dating (39Ar/40Ar) can be used only sporadically due to the rarity of volcanic deposits in caves and in rockshelters (Schwarcz and Rink 2001, for other methods, see Taylor and Aitken 1997).

The type of sediment that covers the petrified remains differs according to the geological setting of the cave. When there is no or hardly any contact between the cave and the world outside, sediment accumulates slowly because of the stable temperature and humidity, and derives entirely from sources within the cave system. When there is considerable contact with the outer world, the decay of the interior cave system goes faster, due to instable temperature and humidity levels, and further increased by a higher carbon dioxide content of the cave atmosphere. The sediment is now mixed with material from outside the cave. An example is the cave breccias, unsorted and generally uncemented accumulations of silt and rock (Fig. 3.1). Nevertheless, sedimentation rate is always relatively low compared to many open-air sites and varies between 1 and 10 cm per year (Ellwood et al. 2001). The rate is also much more constant compared to the variable erosion rates outside caves.

Although a cave provides a relatively closed and undisturbed environment, the sediments in it may have suffered major disturbances. Caves are subject to a constant erosion process, and once deposited sediments are washed away again when a roof or wall has collapsed and the sediment becomes exposed. Remnants of earlier sediments may still adhere to the floor or walls. It is therefore not uncommon to find different ages for sediments collected at different parts of the cave. The depositional rate of a sediment also varies greatly depending on the location in the cave. Ages for sediments taken at the same depth, but at a different spot, are thus likely to differ from each other. Sinkholes, furthermore, may be filled with older sedimentary deposits than the rest of the cave.

The study of cave sediments is not easy, because sediment accumulation in a cave or rockshelter tends to be idiosyncratic: no two caves are exactly alike in their bedrock infrastructure, exposition, size, internal karstic relations, the influence of external geomorphological phenomena, etc. (Farrand 2001). Isolate samples of cave sediment are nearly useless. Laboratory analysis of cave sediments can only be interpreted meaningfully in relation to field study of the cave and its sediments. Sedimentary features and structures, such as laminations, cross stratification, clarity of contacts between strata, and local disturbances can be observed only in situ.

Karstic caves have a special advantage above open-air sites, as far as dating is concerned. Stalagmites and flowstones from the floor may cover or be buried by palaeontological or archaeological features. Stalactites from the roof may fall and become incorporated in the sediment. These elements consist of derivates of calcium carbonate (calcite, aragonite), and can be dated using uranium series methods or, with less accuracy, by radiocarbon (14C), thermoluminescence (TL), and possibly electron spin resonance (ESR) (Schwarcz and Rink 2001).

The Age Of Cave Sediments General Petrified remains in cave sediments are as a rule of thumb not older than ca. 1.8 million years. Practically speaking, they all are Quaternary (Pleistocene or Holocene) in age. This is because surface erosion eventually results in the destruction of caves and their in filled deposits. In some rare cases, however, the karstic system (caves, shelters, and fissures eroded in limestone cliffs) of which the caves are part may be covered as a whole by a marine or lacus-

Sampling of material for analysis in a laboratory for dating purposes is sometimes insufficient (e.g., contamina-

85

ALEXANDRA A.E. VAN DER GEER AND MICHALIS D. DERMITZAKIS tion, amount of material that needs to be analyzed). If the method is based on radiation exposure then the local environment of the dating sample also plays a major role. Moisture and radioactivity levels have to be measured on the spot, in situ (for practical problems, see Rink 2000).

Analysis of the whole bone thus underestimates the real age, unless the uptake process is extremely rapid. This makes bone less favorable material for U-series dating. An advantage, however, of the use of bone over that of a speleothem is that bone contains much more uranium, so that already very small samples are sufficient. Bone dating can be done without destruction by counting the gamma rays emitted by daughters of certain uranium isotopes.

Radiocarbon Dating (14C) Radiocarbon dating is based upon the amount of 14C, which is present in all living matter. Organic matter can be dated up to a time limit of between 40,000 and 60,000 years (for the procedure, see Taylor 1997). Organic matter in caves may derive from past occupants, animals as well as plants, or brought in materials, including charcoal, shells, bones, wood, and eggs. The main problem with radiocarbon dating is the possibility of contamination with younger carbon either deriving from the excavators themselves or from post-depositional organic matter like infiltrating plant roots, burrowing insects and small mammals. Radiocarbon dating is best done on bone, because bone contains some characteristic proteins, which are less likely to have been contaminated, such as pure collagen or amino acid residues (Stafford et al. 1991). Unfortunately, collagen is gradually lost from bone during burial, and this process goes especially fast in the climatic region surrounding the Mediterranean Sea (Schwarcz and Rink 2001). Charcoal also has also a disadvantage, because it tends to absorb dissolved organic constituents from percolating ground water, which could include younger carbon than the charcoal itself (Schwarcz and Rink 2001).

Luminescence Dating (TL and OSL) Luminescence dating (TL and OSL) is a radiation exposure dating method, which is based upon the amount of electronic charges that are trapped in solid materials due to their bombardment by high energy particles produced during radioactive decay. When the solid material is heated (TL: thermoluminescence) or stimulated with energetic photons (OSL: optically stimulated luminescence), the trapped electronic charges recombine, and are emitted in the form of light photons (Aitken 1985, 1998). The number of trapped electronic charges is a regular function of time, and can be reproduced in the laboratory, so that the dose can be computed that the sample had received between burial and analysis, based upon the TL or OSL signal (Schwarcz and Rink 2001). The radioactivity of the surrounding elements yields the dose rate at the site and together with the dose this gives the absolute age. When solid material is heated for a sufficient time at temperatures near 350°C, the trapped charges become zero, as actually is done when measuring their light emittance. With luminescence dating the time of heating of a flint tool can thus be approached.

Uranium Series Dating (U-Series)

Again as in the laboratory, also exposure to light can reduce the amount of trapped charges. This effect is useful to date the quartz and feldspar minerals of cave-deposited sediments, because the age of deposition of the sediment itself can be determined. Quartz gives more reliable dates than feldspar, since most varieties of feldspar lose their trapped charges spontaneously, and thus give too young dates (Schwarcz and Rink 2001). OSR gives more reliable dates than TL for dating of quartz and feldspar, because the level of TL present at the time of deposition is never completely zero, whereas that of OSR is, due to the fact that the OSR signal fades much faster at sunlight exposure than the TL signal (Aitken 1998). A problem with luminescence dating to cave or rockshelter sediments is the possible presence of rock fragments coming from the roof. Once embedded in the sediments, they decompose and leave higher charged quartz or feldspar grains behind. If significant amounts of decomposed sandstone from the walls and roof are included in the sample, the age will be overestimated (Roberts et al. 1998). To avoid this, the luminescence of single grains has to be measured. Another problem of OSR and TL dating are sites with stony matrix. Teeth or flints, which are found adjacent to stone blocks appear to have experienced lower dose rates than those that are found elsewhere in the same site (Brennan, Schwarcz and Rink 1997).

U-series dating is based upon the decay of the element uranium (U) to lead (Pb) through a number of intermediate daughter isotopes (for the method and techniques, see Blackwell and Schwarcz 1995). In the case of caves, the method is applied to the speleothem: the various depositions of calcium carbonate as products of karstic erosion of the cave’s limestone. Generally speaking, these are the stalagmites, stalactites, soda straws, and flowstones. The speleothem has to be absolutely clean, that is, free from detritus. The U-series is best measured by thermal ionization mass spectrometrics (TIMS) (Bar-Matthews et al. 1999). A problem with U-series dating is the contamination with sediments that are carried in by wind, water, or inhabitants and with rock fragments from the roof. This can be corrected by determining the relative amount of the isotope 232Th. (Schwarcz and Rink 2001). Apart from speleothem, also animal skeletons, such as corals, molluscs, and bones can be dated with U-series. Corals by nature contain uranium, but the uranium in bones and molluscs appears to be acquired after burial. That makes the dating more complicated than that of a speleothem, because now you have to know the mode and speed of uranium uptake in order to be able to calculate an age (Schwarcz and Rink 2001). The uptake is gradual, and a gradient in uranium concentration across the thickness of the bone is present (Hedges and Millard 1995).

86

CAVES AND FOSSILS: PALAEONTOLOGY IN GREEK CAVES AND FISSURES For the Greek caves and rockshelters, two types of potentially luminescence datable material exists both windblown: 1. Silt (loess) from adjacent desert areas 2. Sand from shoreline sand dunes.

tio is practically speaking fifty-fifty. The extent of this racemization can be estimated and this gives an impression of the time since death of the organism or shedding of that part (antlers, horns, spikes, eggs, and leaves). The main problem with AAR dating is that rate of racemization depends strongly on a constant environmental temperature. It may be clear that AAR is thus obsolete for open-air sites with substantial temperature fluctuations (seasonal, day-night). For the Greek area, this means that the dramatic changes in climate, which took place during Glacial/Interglacial cycles greatly restrict the usefulness of AAR. At present, AAR is mainly used for comparison between sites and between layers within a site. The method is well suited to establish the correlation between nearby caves, as long as equivalent faunal elements, for example molluscs of the same species, are used (Schwarcz and Rink 2001). In this way, an absolute dating method is used as a relative dating method.

The first material traveled a long distance unprotected from sunlight, and thus the quartz and feldspar of this aeolian sediment has a zero OSL and TL signal at time of deposition. The second material comes from the sunbaked dunes that develop during periods of low sea level near the coastal caves. This bleached sand accumulates in caves and rockshelters at or near the coast. Electron Spin Resonance Dating (ESR) ESR dating is, as TL and OSR, a radiation exposure dating method, and is based upon the same principle of trapped electronic charges arising from radioactive decay (for the method, see Rink 1997, 2000). The amount of trapped charges is estimated by measuring their characteristic spectra on an electron spin resonance spectrometer. The higher the ESR signal, the higher radiation dose was experienced by the sample. The most suitable material is tooth enamel for several reasons: 1. It is widely available in caves and rockhelters, much more than bones 2. It can trap charges for more than ten million years 3. Its ESR signal is practically speaking zero during life and thus at the time of death of the animal

Palaeontology From Greek Caves Palaeoanthropology Caves are especially important for the reconstruction of human evolutionary and cultural history. Much of what is known today about the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic cultures of the Mediterranean region comes from remains preserved in cave and rockshelter sediments (Gamble 1986; Straus et al. 1996; Bailey et al. 1999); for Greece and adjacent areas these are the Boila, Klithi, and Kastritsa Rockshelters and the Theopetra Cave of northern Greece, the Franchthi, Kalamakia, and Complex of the Apidima Caves of southern Greece, Lakonis I Cave of southern Greece, the Konispol Cave of southern Albania, and Akrotiri Aetokremnos Rockshelter of southwestern Cyprus.

To estimate the timing of burial, the radioactivity dose of the enamel has to be measured, but also that of the surrounding sediment (dose rate), as is the case with the luminescence dating of burnt flint. Unlike burnt flint, buried tooth enamel does increase its radioactivity level in time. To cope with this, the uranium uptake rate is taken into account. The dose rate is sometimes overestimated, and thus a too young age calculated, when sediment attached to the teeth are used for ESR, because of the possibility of an area of higher radioactivity around teeth (for the Tabun Cave in Israel, see Schwarcz and Rink 1998).

In rare cases, the information comes directly from human fossils. Pre-Neolithic human fossils were found in the following Greek caves: the famous Petralona Cave, southeast of Thessaloniki, yielded a male skull, dated between 400,000 and 300,000 years (Middle Pleistocene). In the collapsed Lakonis I Rockshelter, a tooth of a Neanderthal was found, provisionally dated to between 44,000 and 38,000 years (Late Pleistocene) or maybe somewhat younger (Harvati, Panagopoulou and Karkanas 2003). It is the first confidently identified Neanderthal fossil from Greece. An earlier found fossil, an undescribed upper molar from the nearby Kalamakia Cave, might be attributed to Neanderthal man as well (Darlas and Lumley 1998; 1999), but at present this is not sure yet. From the Theopetra Cave a Late Palaeolithic skeleton is known, dated to 16,620-16,380 B.P. (B.P. = Before Present, Present = 1950 A.D., Stravopodi, Manolis, and KyparissiApostolika 1999) The Apidima Cave yielded two fossil human crania, possibly of Middle Pleistocene age and which at first look either belonging to a late “PreNeanderthal” or an early Neanderthal (Harvati and Delson 1999). Apart from the skulls, a significant number of bones were found and attributed from six to eight individuals from different stratigraphic levels (Pitsios 1999).

A weak point of all radiation exposure methods is that they depend on how constant the environmental conditions of the cave were throughout its history. Radiation can be absorbed by water permeation, but also remobilized (Schiegl et al. 1994; Mercier et al. 1995). The ideal, undisturbed cave does not exist. On the other hand, caves (Schwarcz and Rink 2001) with variable moisture levels during history appear to have been dated accurately. Amino-Acid Racemization (AAR) AAR dating is based on ratio of the two forms (L and D) of amino acids in biological material (for the method, see Hare, Von Endt, and Kokis 1997), such as bones and teeth (Belluomini and Delitala 1983). All, except for one, amino acids in nature occur either in the left handed (L) or in the right handed (D) form. After death, L forms tend to invert to the D form and vice-versa; in the end, the ra-

87

ALEXANDRA A.E. VAN DER GEER AND MICHALIS D. DERMITZAKIS cave bear cave in Greece is the Loutraki Aridea Cave near Pella in Macedonia. The species has been ascribed to a separate cave bear species, Ursus ingressus (Rabeder et al. 2004). Other bear caves are the Petralona Cave where apart from the fossil human remains, also bear, Ursus deningeri, remains were found.

In most cases, however, the information about prehistoric human occupation comes to us in the form of biogenetic material that was accumulated by early man, either as prey or as material to make tools. In such cases, the animal bones are damaged, and complete skeletons are missing. The bones give information about which animal was hunted, and who was the hunter. Often it is difficult to distinguish between man as hunter or carnivores as hunters. Typical for humans are the use of tools to remove the flesh from the bone, resulting in cutmarks and scrapings, whereas typical for hyenas is the high degree of bone fragmentation. In some cases, the waste of human meals accumulates in discrete piles (middens) that include only a small fraction of non organic matrix, such as the land snail middens in the Franchthi Cave in southern Greece. In other cases, the bones and shells may be widely scattered throughout the cave sediments, as is, strange enough, the case for the marine shells in the same cave (Farrand 2000).

The cave hyena, Crocuta crocuta spelaea, is the other main factor for large fossil accumulations in caves, due to its habit of dragging prey materials into caves. A considerable part of the bone accumulations by hyenas consists of skeletal material of the hyenas themselves. The cave hyena is just a subspecies of the spotted hyena of today, and got its subspecific name because its fossils were in first instance limited to caves. At present, also open-air sites of this hyena are known, so it did not live exclusively in caves at all. As a general rule, all bones from hyena den caves are broken and heavily damaged. A Greek example of a hyena cave is the Hagios Georgios Cave in Kilkis, Macedonia. Fossils represent a major part of a Latest Pleistocene megafauna, such as red deer, Cervus elaphus, giant deer, Megaloceros sp., aurochs, Bos primigenius, wild horses, Equus caballus cf germanicus, wild ass, Equus hydruntinus, and the cave hyena, Crocuta crocuta spelaea.

Apart from the accumulation of bone material, humans may also disturb the cave sediments, and thus cause bioturbation. In many caves, these disturbances provide the only evidence that prehistoric man lived in the cave. The anthropogenic bioturbation includes trampling of bones and the making of hearths. Burned bones can fossilize, too, but they are not easily distinguished from certain mineralization processes. The cave occupants may also intentionally have imported materials for the building of structures (rocks and wood) or for improving or leveling the cave floor (sand or soil) as in La Grotte du Lazaret (Nice, France) (Lumley 1969).

The Cretan Deer The majority of deer fossils found in the caves of the Islands of Greece has been washed into the near shore caves. Examples are the Islands of Kasos and Karpathos (Cervus cerigensis, Cervus pygadiensis), Telos (undescribed deer), and Crete (Candiacervus, see below). Deer remains in mainland caves are generally leftovers of the meals of predators, including humans, but this is not the case of deer remains in island caves. Large terrestrial predators are lacking on the islands (for example Sondaar 1977, so deer remains could not have been brought in as prey). Furthermore, deer generally do not shelter in caves. This means that they are mainly washed in, and are far more complete than the prey deer remains of mainland caves.

The Cave Bear And The Cave Hyena Generally, remains of animals that live in a cave are hardly ever found in any one part of the cave. The only two exceptions are when the cave is used over long periods of time for hibernation or aestivation and when the animals concerned are colonial species living together in large numbers. An example of the first case are bears, and one of the second case are bats. In both cases, the skeletons are often remarkably complete. A considerable part of bear mortality in European cave sites constitutes of hibernation mortality (Kurtèn 1958). Bone assemblages may build up in such cases because of the favored use of particular parts of the cave year after year. Not all bears that hibernate in caves are cave bears in the narrow sense: Ursus spelaeus. Other hibernating bears in Europe were Ursus etruscus, Ursus ingressus, Ursus deningeri, and the still living Ursus arctos, the brown bear. The most ancient is Ursus etruscus, which may have given rise to both the brown bear lineage, and the cave bear lineage. The cave bear lineage includes Ursus ingressus and Ursus deningeri as ancestors of Ursus spelaeus. For convenience, all members of this lineage are called cave bears.

The most spectacular deer fossils of Greece are those of the Cretan deer, Candiacervus. The fossils are found in a large number of caves and collapsed rockshelters, in chronological order, from older to younger: (according to de Vos and Dermitzakis 1986) Charoumbes 2 and 3, Simonelli Cave, Kato Horafi, Rethymnon fissure, Zourida Cave, Mavro Mouri Cave, Lykotinara Cave, Bate Cave, Gerani Cave 2, 4, 5, and 6. The Cretan deer, endemic to the Island of Crete, is represented with the following eight species, in increasing shoulder height: Candiacervus ropalophorus, sp. IIa, b, and c, cretensis, rethymnensis, dorothensis and Candiacervus major (de Vos 1979; de Vos and Dermitzakis 1986; Dermitzakis and de Vos 1987). The smallest stood only 40 cm at the shoulder, whereas the tallest species reached 165 cm, larger than the elk, Alces alces, of today.

Bear remains are extremely common in many caves (Abel and Kyrle 1931; Erdbrink 1953; Kurtèn 1958; Adam 1975), and Greece forms no exception. The largest

88

CAVES AND FOSSILS: PALAEONTOLOGY IN GREEK CAVES AND FISSURES One cave yielded a complete herd of the smallest species, Gerani Cave, Rethymnon area. Such a well preserved herd presents a unique opportunity to study population statistics and ontogeny of this deer (van der Geer and Dermitzakis 2006). It may very well be that in this case, deer took shelter in the cave after all, because of the presence of complete skeletons including those of fragile juveniles and neonates. The same seems valid for another cave, Mavro Mouri Cave, Rethymnon area, which yielded pathological bones of the Cretan deer. The bones are extremely thin, and would have broken if washed in. These ill bones indicate that the deer suffered from long term malnutrition, e.g., lack of minerals, which led to a form of osteopenia (Dermitzakis, van der Geer and Lyras 2006). On islands, where carnivores are lacking, it is the food that limits population size.

creased massivity of all bones, pronounced muscle scars on the bones and increased hypsodonty, this change in body proportions indicates that it had evolved towards the niche of goat like bovids in rugged terrains. The Cretan Otter The Pleistocene Cretan otter, Lutrogale cretensis, is known to science by only one skeleton (Fig. 3.3), a left mandible, two molars and a left femur, all from the Lykotinara Cave, Rethymnon area. It is at the same time also the only known carnivore known from Pleistocene Crete (Willemsen 1996). The other carnivores are generally bad swimmers, but otters are, on the contrary, excellent swimmers, and are found in several unbalanced island faunas. The skeleton of the Cretan otter was found in a cave, and is remarkably complete (Symeonidis and Sondaar 1975), indicating that either the otter died on the spot, or was washed in while still relatively fresh. Fragile and small elements, such as ribs and footbones, are present. Originally, it was described as Isolalutra cretensis (Symeonidis and Sondaar 1975), but it was later moved to the genus Lutrogale. With that move, it became the only known Lutrogale fossil known from Europe. Only two other extinct Lutrogale species are known: Lutrogale palaeoleptonyx (Dubois 1908) and Lutrogale robusta (von Koenigswald 1933), both from Java, which makes the skeleton from Crete a precious one. Difference with the living Lutrogale perspicillata is the size: the Cretan otter is slightly larger. The same moderate size increase is seen in the island otters from the Pleistocene of Java, Lutrogale robusta, and the Late Miocene of the Gargano, Paralutra garganensis. A truly gigantic island otter is only the one from the Pleistocene of Sardinia, Megalenhydris barbaricini.

The amazing variation in size and morphology of the Cretan deer is explained as an adaptive radiation to occupy all possible empty niches ranging from dense forest to prickly rocks. The co-existence of various environments on Crete has been confirmed by studies on the rich fossil avifauna from caves (Lax 1996). On the ground of body proportions, molar morphology and wear pattern, the specialist trophic niches occupied by the eight taxa can be summarized as follows: 1. Grassy food or prickly bushes on rugged terrain, Candiacervus ropalophorus, and species II, like goats and the Kri-kri of today 2. Grasses on a mountain plain or above underground water, Candiacervus cretensis; like antelopes 3. Leaves and twigs in a forest, Candiacervus rethymnensis; like red deer. 4. Leaves and tall bushes in an open-forested terrain, Candiacervus dorothensis, Candiacervus major; like large deer The tallest species, Candiacervus major, has longer and more slender legs than any mainland deer, and a giraffe like way of life has been suggested. The most typical and most abundantly found Cretan deer are the two smallest sizes, which have not only relatively and absolutely short limbs, but also long and simplified antlers; these species occupied a niche close to that of the wild Kri-kri, Capra aegagrus, of Crete today: barren rocks with thorny bushes, as shown by features of their skeleton and goat like body proportions. It deviated so much from mainland deer that it is impossible to indicate with certainty its ancestor.

The taxonomy of the Cretan otter is a difficult case, because its remains are extremely few and its mode of life most likely did not differ much from that of mainland otters. Otters on islands generally find the same ecological niches as their ancestors occupied the mainland. The Cretan otter differs from the common otters of the genus Lutra: it had a more terrestrial lifestyle. This made Symeonidis and Sondaar to erect a new genus: Isolalutra, with the new species cretensis (Symeonidis and Sondaar 1975). However, these terrestrial adaptations are not unique, but found also in the smooth otter, Lutrogale perspicillata. Also the teeth resemble those of Lutrogale. The similarities are at present considered of phylogenetic origin and not as parallel evolution (Willemsen 1980; 1996). One character, nonetheless, remains unique for Lutrogale cretensis: it retains an upper second molar, which in all extant and known fossil lutrines is absent (Willemsen 1996). This molar disappeared at a very early stage in otter evolution.

Candiacervus species II is known more in detail, thanks to a composite mounted skeleton (Fig. 3.2) (van der Geer et al. 2005; 2006). This species has considerably shortened lower limbs. This shortening is already present at birth, and increases further during postnatal development due to a relative slower growth speed (van der Geer and Dermitzakis 2006). At the same time, this deer has a more or less normal vertebral column length and moderately upwards curved lumbar section, both features reminding us more of the insular dwarf bovid Myotragus than of a mainland small deer like Axis axis. Combined with an in-

The same is valid for some Pleistocene otter remains that were found in other Mediterranean Islands. Some of the earlier erected island genera are now included into the

89

ALEXANDRA A.E. VAN DER GEER AND MICHALIS D. DERMITZAKIS living genus Lutra. This is the case with Nesolutra euxena from Malta (now Lutra euxena) and Nesolutra trinacriae from Sicily (now Lutra trinacriae). Caves form an important element in solving these problems, because only in caves we can expect to find more or less complete otter skeletons. In open-air sites, their remains are as a rule scattered and damaged.

mouse was pushed aside by the newcomer Mus musculus, the common house mouse of today and inseparable companion of humans.

The Telos Dwarf Elephant

The caves of the Balearic Islands, Mallorca and Menorca, Spain, are famous for the abundant fossil remains of an endemic goat, Myotragus balearicus. It is not only a dwarf, but has a unique feature as well: its incisors are ever growing, as in rodents, hence its common name of mouse-goat. The only ruminants that share this character are the living vicunya, Vicugna vicugna, of South America and Lorenz’ antelope, Maremmia lorenzi, from the Miocene of Tuscany-Sardinia. In the case of Myotragus, this character evolved on the island from a normal goat like dentition (Bover and Alcover 1999). Ever-growing incisors are related to a highly abrasive diet. In this way the mouse-goat could live longer before its teeth were completely worn. The diet of Myotragus must have contained a high percentage of fibers, as evidenced by the contents of petrified droppings (coprolites). These goral like goats were even eating plants that are normally toxic for ruminants, such as buxus (Alcover et al. 1999). On islands, food is the major limiting factor for population size, and the change towards otherwise indigestible food items appeared necessary. That nutrition was critical is also evidenced by the findings of chewed bones. Several limb bones show signs of osteophagia. This is a common habit of ruminants when their diet has a phosphorus deficiency.

Palaeontology From Other Mediterranean Caves The Balearic Mouse-Goat

Caves are important sources for fossils of Pleistocene pygmy and dwarf elephants and mammoths. These dwarfed proboscideans are typical for islands that are far away from the coast and on which no large terrestrial carnivores are found (Palombo 2001). The absence of predators, together with the limited food resources, lead to dwarfism, which sometimes is truly spectacular. The most famous case is the pygmy elephant, Elephas falconeri, found in Pleistocene deposits in caves on Sicily, e.g., Spinagallo Cave near Siracusa. This pygmy was about four times smaller than its mainland ancestor, Elephas antiquus. It is said that the strange skull with the large opening in front gave rise to the myth of the Cyclops, the one-eyed giant in Homer’s epic (Dermitzakis and Papadopoulou 1989). But also caves in Greece and adjacent regions yielded dwarf elephant fossils, all on the islands. These are Elephas antiquus creutzburgi from Crete (Bate 1907), Elephas cypriotes from Cyprus, Elephas tiliensis from Telos (Theodorou 1983), and undescribed dwarf elephant remains from the Islands: Delos, Kythnos, Melos, Naxos, Serifos, and Rhodes (Symeonidis, Bachmayer and Zapfe 1974).

The Pleistocene endemic mouse-goat Myotragus balearicus exhibits a great size variation (Marcus 1998), far exceeding that of mainland relatives, but similar to that of the Cretan deer (Candiacervus, see above). The smallest Myotragus shows the most extreme shortening of the metapodials ever seen in an insular ruminant, and can be called without doubt a pygmy form with its shoulder height of about 20 cm. (Bover 2004). The end of Myotragus coincides with the settlement of the first human colonizers on the island (Alcover 2000).

Dwarf fossils from the Charkadio Cave on Telos appear to have preserved part of their original DNA. Analysis confirmed that they indeed belong to the genus Elephas (Poulakakis et al. 2002). They are slightly larger than the Sicilian pygmy. The youngest radiocarbon age is 4,390 +/- 600 years B.P. The Cretan Giant Mouse Caves are the major source for fossils of the Cretan mouse, Kritimys. This mouse is represented by three species (in chronological order): Kritimys aff. kiridus, Kritimys kiridus, Kritimys catreus, of which the last was larger than the brown rat, Rattus norvegicus (Mayhew 1977; 1996). The different Kritimys species are not found together. The earliest species, found in Siteia I, may be an immigrant from Rhodes, via the Islands Kasos and Karpathos, based on a similar finding at the Damatria formation on Rhodes (Mayhew 1977).

The Five Horned Deer From karstic fissure fillings and caves of the Gargano Promontory, east coast of southern Italy, a Late MioceneEarly Pliocene deer, Hoplitomeryx matthei, is known (Leinders 1984). This deer is bizarre, with its five horns and sabre like protruding canines. At least four size groups are found to date (van der Geer 2005a; 2008), reminding us of the situation with the Cretan deer. The most striking characteristic of all Hoplitomeryx species is the presence of five horns: one between the eyes on the caudal part of the nasals, and a pair above each orbit. Hoplitomeryx is a left over of the basic deer stock, and could survive on the island for millions of years, undisturbed by foreign influxes. Later, after its extinction when the island got connected to the rest of Italy, and other ru-

The Cretan mouse is not the only mouse that was found in Cretan caves. In younger sediments, remains of Mus minotaurus are found (Mayhew 1977; 1996). This mouse followed the same trend of increasing size on Pleistocene Crete from the earlier species Mus bateae till the later species Mus minotaurus. In the Holocene, the Minotaur

90

CAVES AND FOSSILS: PALAEONTOLOGY IN GREEK CAVES AND FISSURES minant species took over its habitat, its remains were buried in the karst systems, and remained there undisturbed for another few million years, till its discovery in the 1970s. Due to its long term isolated evolution, this bizarre deer shows several highly endemic features, some of which are in parallel with other island ruminants (van der Geer 1999; 2005b), which makes it practically impossible to solve its phylogenetic relationships with other deer.

today or at least covered with shrubs. Phanourios evolved away from the life style of a mainland hippopotamus out of necessity: on islands, lakes are an exception, large rivers are totally absent and much of the islands consist of barren limestone rocks, often mountainous. The end of the dwarf hippo is still a matter of debate. The same collapsed rockshelter yields archaeological remains, consisting of burnt bones and shells. If they indeed belong to the dwarf hippo, then the hippo was overhunted by humans, which led to a fast and fatal decline in numbers. If there is a sterile gap between the layers with hippo and the layers of human occupation, then the hippo was already extinct before human colonization of the island took place (for discussion, see Sondaar and van der Geer 2000).

The Sardinian Dog Remains of the Pleistocene Sardinian dog, Cynotherium sardous, come for the major part from caves (Dragonara Cave, Grotta Verde Alghero Cave, Corbeddu Cave of Oliena) and karstic fissure fillings (Monte Tuttavista, Orosei). This dog had the size of a jackal and hunted small prey only (Lyras and van der Geer 2006). Its ancestor was Xenocyon, a large, hypercarnivorous canid, which hunts large prey (Lyras et al. 2006). The dentition of Cynotherium is typical for a hypercarnivorous species, and retained features of Xenocyon. Its skull and masticator muscles on the other hand lost all characters of hypercarnivory. The body skeleton became much smaller, yet more massive and with pronounced muscle scars, indicating a very strong animal. Cynotherium provides a case in which a large hypercarnivorous dog evolved into a small dog hunting small prey in order to survive on the island. The dwarfism is caused by a combination of reduced interspecific competition, reduced predation, and lack of large prey.

Conclusions The palaeontological importance of caves equals its archaeological importance. Due to their stable and closed environment, caves act like archives of history. Petrified remains of animals that lived in caves or were brought into caves, are undisturbed for thousands of years. Especially in areas where fossilization in the open air is practically impossible, such as in (sub) tropical forests, caves constitute the only source of fossils. The undisturbed, closed nature and the gradual natural sedimentation, resulting in stratigraphic columns covering a considerable time span, make it possible to date cave sediments. The most common dating methods are based on radiocarbon, uranium series, luminescence (TL and OSL), electron spin resonance, and amino-acid racemization. Fossils in caves are generally not older than 1.8 million years old, and belong thus to the Quaternary period.

Cyprus’ Pygmy Hippo The fossiliferous breccia of the collapsed rockshelter of Akrotiri Aetokremnos is famous for the abundant fossils of the Pleistocene pygmy hippo, Phanourios minor (Bate 1906). Also Crete yielded fossils of Pleistocene dwarf hippos, Hippopotamus creutzburgi, but these were mainly found on a plateau in the Dikti Mountains; the remains from caves are only few and often badly preserved, except for the material from the Kato Zakros Cave.

The most important fossils from Greek and adjacent regions caves or rockshelters are all of a Pleistocene age, and belong to cave bears (Ursus spelaeus), the Cretan deer (Candiacervus), the Cretan otter (Lutrogale cretensis), the Cretan mice (Kritimys catreus and Mus minotaurus), the Telos dwarf elephant (Elephas tiliensis), Creutzburg’s dwarf hippo (Hippopotamus creutzburgi) and the Cypriotic dwarf hippo (Phanourios minor). Some examples of fossils from other Mediterranean caves are the Pleistocene Sardinian dog (Cynotherium sardous), the Balearic mouse-goat (Myotragus balearicus), ranging from the Pliocene to the Holocene, and the Miocene five horned deer (Hoplitomeryx matthei) from the Gargano in south Italy. These are just a few examples, and only hint at how important caves are for vertebrate palaeontology. The preservation of caves should be a topic on geoenvironmental conservation lists, not only for the protection of unique, endemic cave dwelling species of today, but also to safeguard information about the past.

The Cypriotic hippo is named after the saint Hagios Phanourios, who stranded at the cliffs of Cyprus in an attempt to escape his prosecutors from Syria or Turkey. His bones are a source for worship in the local churches (Fig. 3.4). Ground to powder, they are used as a medicine against almost every common disease. The first description of this habit goes back to the 16th century, when Benedetto Bordone noted it in his famous Isolario (The Book of Islands), a cartographic work on islands (Bordone 1528). The bones, as it turned out, do not belong to the unfortunate saint, but to an extinct hippo. It was well adapted to walking on rocky soil and also to climbing, and was eating shrubs (Houtekamer and Sondaar 1979). At that time, Cyprus was much more forested than it is

91

ALEXANDRA A.E. VAN DER GEER AND MICHALIS D. DERMITZAKIS Bibliography

cene Deposits, N.W. Rutter and N.R. Catto, eds., Vancouver, pp. 167-208.

Abel, O. and G. Kyrle, eds. 1931. Die Drachenhöhle bei Mixnitz (Speläologische Monographien 7-8), Vienna.

Bordone, B. 1528. Isolario, Venice.

Adam, K.D. 1975. “Die mittelpleistozäne SäugetierFauna aus dem Heppenloch bei Gutenberg (Württemberg)” (Abhandlungen der Karst- und Höhlenkunde 13), Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Serie B, Geologie und Paläontologie 3, pp. 1-247.

Bover, P.A. 2004. Noves Aportacions al Coneixement del Gènere Myotragus Bate 1909 (Artiodactyla, Caprinae) de les Illes Balears, Ph.D. diss., University of the Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca. Bover P. and J.A. Alcover. 1999. “The Evolution and Ontogeny of the Dentition of Myotragus Balearicus Bate, 1909 (Artiodactyla, Caprinae): Evidence from New Fossil Data,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68, pp. 401-428.

Aitken, M.J. 1985. Thermoluminescence Dating, London. ______.1998. An Introduction to Optical Dating: The Dating of Quaternary Sediments by the Use of Photonstimulated Luminescence, Oxford.

Brain, C.K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted: An Introduction of African Cave Taphonomy, Chicago and London.

Alcover, J.A. 2000. “Vertebrate Evolution and Extinction on Western and Central Mediterranean Islands,” Tropics 10, pp. 103-123.

Brennan, B.J., H.P. Schwarcz and W.J. Rink. 1997. “Simulation of the Gamma Radiation Field in Lumpy Environments,” Radiation Measurements 27, pp. 299305.

Alcover, J.A., R. Perez-Obiol, Y. Errikarta-Imanol, and P. Bover. 1999. “The Diet of Myotragus Balearicus Bate 1909 (Artiodactyla: Caprinae), an Extinct Bovid from the Balearic Islands: Evidence from Coprolites,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 66, pp. 57-74.

Buckland, W. 1823. Reliquiae Diluvianae, or Observation on the Organic Remains Contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on Other Geological Phenomena Attesting to the Action of an Universal Deluge, London.

Andrews, P. 1990. Owls, Caves, and Fossils: Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of Small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Pleistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-Sub-Mendip, Somerset.

Darlas, A. and H. de Lumley. 1998. “Fouilles FrancoHelléniques de la Grotte de Kalamakia (Aréopolis; Péloponnèse),” BCH 122, pp. 655-661.

Andrzejewski, R. and E. Rajska. 1972. “Trappability of Bank Voles in Pitfalls and Live Traps,” Bialowieza 4, pp. 41-56. Bailey, G.N., E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds.1999. The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994, (BSA Studies 3), London.

______. 1999. “Palaeolithic Research in Kalamakia Cave, Areopolis, Peloponnese,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), (BSA Studies 3), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., London, pp. 293-302.

Bar-Matthews, M., A. Ayalon, A. Kaufman, and G.J. Wasserburg. 1999. “The Eastern Mediterranean Paleoclimate as a Reflection of Regional Events; Soreq Cave, Israel,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 166, pp. 8595.

Dawkins, W.B. 1874. Cave-hunting: Researches on the Evidence of Caves Respecting the Early Inhabitants of Europe, London. de Vos, J. 1979. “The Endemic Pleistocene Deer of Crete,” Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Series B 82 (1), pp. 59-90.

Bate, D.M.A. 1906. “The Pigmy Hippopotamus of Cyprus,” Geological Magazine 3, pp. 241-245. _____. 1907. “On Elephant Remains from Crete, with Description of Elephas creticus, sp.n.,” Proceedings of the Zoological Society London 6, pp. 238–250.

de Vos, J. and M.D. Dermitzakis. 1986. “Models of the Development of Pleistocene Deer on Crete,” Modern Geology 10, pp. 243-248.

Belluomini, G. and L. Delitala. 1983. “Datazione dei Resti Ossei e Denti del Pleistocene Superiore e dell'Olocene dell'Area Mediterranea con il Metodo della Racemizzazione degli Aminoacidi,” Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria 6, pp. 21-30.

Dermitzakis, M.D. 1977. “The Quaternary Fossil Mammals in Caves and Karstic Holes of Crete Island and Their Significance,” Bulletin de la Société Spéleologique de Grèce 14, pp. 152-190.

Blackwell, B. and H.P. Schwarcz. 1995. “Uranium Series Disequilibrium Dating,” in Dating Methods for Pleisto-

______. 1990. “Paleogeography, Geodynamic Processes and Event Stratigraphy during the Late Cenozoic of the

92

CAVES AND FOSSILS: PALAEONTOLOGY IN GREEK CAVES AND FISSURES Aegean Area,” in Biogeographical Aspects of Insularity (International Symposium, Rome 18-22 May 1987), Atti dei Convegni Lincei 85, Rome, pp. 263-288. Dermitzakis, M.D. and G. Anastasakis. 1990. “PostMiddle Miocene Paleogeographic Evolution of the Central Aegean Sea, Detailed Quaternary Reconstruction of the Region and Its Possible Influence on the Distribution of the Quaternary Mammals of the Cyclades Region,” Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie 1, pp. 116.

Hare, P.E., D.W. Von Endt and J.E. Kokis. 1997. “Protein and Amino Acid Diagenesis Dating,” in Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, R.E. Taylor and M.J. Aitken eds., New York, pp. 261-296. Harvati, K and E. Delson. 1999. “Conference Report: Paleoanthropology of the Mani Peninsula (Greece)” JHE 36, pp. 343-348. Harvati, K., E. Panagopoulou and P. Karkanas. 2003. “First Neanderthal Remains from Greece: The Evidence from Lakonis,” JΗΕ 45, pp. 465-473.

Dermitzakis, M.D. and J. de Vos. 1987. “Faunal Succession and the Evolution of Mammals in Crete during the Pleistocene,” Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 173, pp. 377-408.

Hedges, R.E.M. and A.R. Millard. 1995. “Bones and Groundwater: Towards the Modelling of Diagenetic Processes,” JAS 22, pp. 155-164.

Dermitzakis, M.D. and E. Papadopoulou. 1989. “Giants, Dragons, Saints and Geological Phaenomena,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 23, pp. 75-100.

Houtekamer, J.L. and P.Y. Sondaar. 1979. “Osteology of the Forelimb of the Pleistocene Dwarf Hippopotamus from Cyprus with Special Reference to Phylogeny and Function,” Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series B 82 (4), pp. 411148.

Dermitzakis, M.D and P.Y. Sondaar. 1987. “Ο Παλαιολιθικός Άνθρωπος στη Μεσόγειο και Ζώα που Έχουν Εκλείψει,” Η Νεα Οικολογια (January 1987), pp. 24-31.

Kurtèn, B. 1958. “Life and Death of the Pleistocene Cave Bear: A Study in Paleoecology,” Acta Zoologica Fennica 95, pp. 1-59.

Dermitzakis, M.D., A.A.E. van der Geer and G. Lyras. 2006. “Παλαιοπαθολογικές Παρατηρήσεις σε έναν Πληθυσμό Απολιθωμένων Ελαφιών απο το Ανω Πλειστοκαίνο της Κρήτης,” in Τιμητικός τόμος Καθηγητού Αντ. Σ. Κουτσελινη, A. Kαλοφούρτης, N. Παπαδόπουλος, Κ. Σπηλιοπούλου, K. Μαραμπέλλας, and A. Χατζηιωάννου, eds., Athens, pp. 43-51.

Lax, E.M. 1996. “The Potential Value of Bird Fossils for Island Biogeography: The Pleistocene Birds from Crete,” in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers, D.S. Reese, ed., (Monographs in World Archaeology 28), Madison, pp. 181-196.

Dubois, E. 1908. “Das geologische Alter der Kendengoder Trinil-Fauna,” Tijdschrift Koninklijk Nederlansch Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, Series 2 (25), pp. 12351270.

Leinders, J.J.M. 1984. “Hoplitomerycidae fam. nov. (Ruminantia, Mammalia) from Neogene Fissure Fillings in Gargano (Italy); Part 1: The Cranial Osteology of Hoplitomeryx gen. nov. and a Discussion on the Classification of Pecoran Families,” Scripta Geologica 70, pp. 1-51.

Ellwood, B.B., F.B. Harrold, S.L. Benoist, L.G. Straus, M.G. Morales, K. Petruso, N.F. Bicho, J. Zilhão, and N. Soler. 2001. “Paleoclimate and Intersite Correlations from Late Pleistocene/Holocene Cave Sites: Results from Southern Europe,” Geoarchaeology 16, pp. 433-463.

Lumley, H. de. 1969. Une Cabane Acheuléenne dans la Grotte du Lazaret (Nice), (Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 7), Paris. Lyras, G.A. and A.A.E. van der Geer. 2006. “Adaptations of the Pleistocene Island Canid Cynotherium sardous (Sardinia, Italy) for Hunting Small Prey,” Cranium 23, pp. 51-60.

Erdbrink, D.P. 1953. A Review of Fossil and Recent Bears of the Old World, Utrecht. Farrand, W.R. 2000. Depositional History of Franchthi Cave: Sediments, Stratigraphy, and Chronology (Franchthi Fascile 12), Bloomington and Indiannapolis.

Lyras, G.A., A.A.E. van der Geer, M.D. Dermitzakis, and J. de Vos. 2006. “Cynotherium sardous, an Insular Canid (Mammalia: Carnivora) from the Pleistocene of Sardinia (Italy), and Its Origin,” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26, pp. 735-745.

______. 2001. “Sediments and Stratigraphy in Rockshelters and Caves: A Personal Perspective on Principles and Pragmatics,” Geoarchaeology 16, pp. 537-57.

Maguire, J.M., D. Pemberton and M.H. Collett. 1980. “The Makapansgat Limeworks Grey Breccia: Hominids, Hyaenas, Hystricids or Hillwash,” Palaeontologia Africana 23, pp. 75-98.

Gamble, C. 1986. The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe (Cambridge World Archaeology), Cambridge. Glover, P.E., E.C. Glover, E.C. Trump, and L.E.D. Wateridge. 1964. “The Lava Caves of Mount Suswa, Keny,” Studies in Speleology 1, pp. 51-66.

Marcus, L.F. 1998. “Variation in Selected Skeletal Elements of the Fossil Remains of Myotragus balearicus, a

93

ALEXANDRA A.E. VAN DER GEER AND MICHALIS D. DERMITZAKIS Pleistocene Bovid from Mallorca,” Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44, pp. 113-37.

and Q. Hua. 1998. “Optical and Radiocarbon Dating at Jinmium Rock Shelter in Northern Australia,” Nature 393, pp. 358-362.

Mayhew, D.F. 1977. “The Endemic Pleistocene Murids of Crete I-II,” Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Series B) 80, pp. 182-214.

Schiegl, S., S. Lev-Yadun, O. Bar-Yosef, A. El Goresy, and S. Weiner. 1994. “Siliceous Aggregates from Prehistoric Wood Ash: A Major Component of Sediments at Kebara and Hayonim Caves (Israel),” Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 43, pp. 267–278.

______. 1996. “The Extinct Murids of Crete,” in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers, D.S. Reese, ed., (Monographs in World Archaeology 28), Madison, pp. 167-171.

Schwarcz, H.P. and W.J. Rink. 1998. “Progress in ESR and U-series Chronology of the Levantine Paleolithic,” in Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and O. Bar-Yosef eds., New York, pp. 57-66.

Mercier, N., H. Valladas, J.-L. Joron, S. Schiegl, O. BarYosef, and S. Weiner. 1995. “Thermoluminescence Dating and the Problem of Geochemical Evolution of Sediments - Α Case Study: The Mousterian Levels at Hayonim (1994),” Israel Journal of Chemistry 35, pp. 137-141.

______2001. “Dating Methods for Sediments of Caves and Rockshelters with Examples from the Mediterranean Region,” Geoarchaeology 16, pp. 355-371.

Morris, P. 1974. “The Mammal Fauna of the Ash-flow Tuff Blisters of Fantale, Ethiopia,” Studies in Speleology 2, pp. 233-237.

Simons, J.W. 1966. “The Presence of Leopard and a Study of the Food Debris in the Leopard Lairs of the Mount Suswa Caves, Kenya,” Bulletin of the Cave Exploration Group of East Africa 1, pp. 51-69.

Palombo, M.R. 2001. “Endemic Elephants of the Mediterranean Islands: Knowledge, Problems and Perspectives,” in The World of Elephants, (Proceedings of the 1st International Congress, October 16-20 2001 Rome), G. Cavaretta, P. Gioia, M. Mussi, and M.R. Palombo, eds., Rome, pp. 486-491.

Sondaar, P.Y. 1977. “Insularity and Its Effect on Mammal Evolution,” in Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, M.K. Hecht, P.C. Goody and B.M. Hecht, eds., New York, pp. 671-707. ______. 1991. “Island Mammals of the Past,” Science Progress 75, pp. 249-264.

Pitsios, Th.K. 1999. “Paleonthropological Research at the Cave Site of Apidima and the Surrounding Region (South Peloponnese, Greece),” Anthropologischer Anzeiger 57, pp. 1-11.

Sondaar, P.Y., J. de Vos, and M.D. Dermitzakis. 1986. “Late Cenozoic Faunal Evolution and Palaeogeography of the South Aegean Island Arc,” Modern Geology 10, pp. 249-259.

Poulakakis, N., G.E. Theodorou, E. Zouros, and M. Mylonas. 2002. “Molecular Phylogeny of the Extinct Pleistocene Dwarf Elephant Palaeoloxodon antiquus falconeri from Telos Island, Dodecanese, Greece,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 55, pp. 364-374.

Sondaar, P.Y., M.D. Dermitzakis and J. de Vos. 1996. “The Paleogeography and Faunal Evolution of the Land Mammals of Crete,” in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers, D.S. Reese, ed., (Monographs in World Archaeology 28), Madison, pp. 61-67.

Rabeder, G., M. Hofreiter, D. Nagel, and G. Withalm. 2004. “New Taxa of Alpine Cave Bears (Ursidae, Carnivora),” in Actes du 9e Symposium Ιnternational sur l'ours des Cavernes, (Entremont-le-Vieux (Savoie, France), Septembre 2003, Cahiers Scientifiques - Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Lyon, Hors Série n° 2), Lyon, pp. 4967.

Sondaar, P.Y. and A.A.E. van der Geer. 2000. “Mesolithic Environment and Animal Exploitation on Cyprus and Sardinia/Corsica,” in Archaeozoology of the Near East IV A(Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas), M. Mashkour, A.M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin, eds., Groningen, pp. 67-73.

Rink, W.J. 1997. “Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Dating and ESR Applications in Quaternary Science and Archaeometry,” Radiation Measurements 27, pp. 975-1025.

Stafford, T.W. Jr, P.E. Hare, L. Currie, A.J.T. Jull, and D.J. Donahue. 1991. “Accelerator Radiocarbon Dating at the Molecular Level,” JAS 18, pp. 35-72.

______. 2000. “Beyond 14C Dating: A User's Guide to Long-range Dating Methods in Archaeology,” in Earth Sciences and Archaeology, P. Goldberg, V.T. Holliday and C.R. Ferring, eds., New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London and Moscow, pp. 385-417.

Stravopodi, E., S. Manolis and N. Kyparissi-Apostolika. 1999. Palaeoanthropological Findings from Theopetra Cave in Thessaly: A Preliminary Report,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), (BSA Studies 3), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E.

Roberts, R., M. Bird, J. Olley, R.Galbraith, E. Lawson, G. Laslett, H. Yoshida, R. Jones, R. Fullagar, G. Jacobsen,

94

CAVES AND FOSSILS: PALAEONTOLOGY IN GREEK CAVES AND FISSURES Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., London, pp. 271-281.

______. 2008. “The Effect of Insularity on the Eastern Mediterranean Early Cervoid Hoplitomeryx: The study of the Forelimb,” Quaternary International 182, pp. 145– 159.

Straus, L.G., B.V. Eriksen, J.M. Erlandson, and D.R. Yesner, eds. 1996. Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, (Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology), New York.

van der Geer, A.A.E., J. de Vos, G. Lyras, and M. Dermitzakis. 2005. “The Mounting of a Skeleton of the Fossil Species Candiacervus sp. II from Lyko Cave, Crete, Greece,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium “Insular Vertebrate Evolution: The Palaeontological Approach”, J.A. Alcover and P. Bover, eds., (Monografies de la Societat d’Història Natural de les Balears 12), pp. 337-346.

Sutcliffe, A.J. 1973. “Caves of the East African Rift Valley,” Transactions of the Cave Research Group of Great Britain 15, pp. 41-65. Sutcliffe, A.J., D. Bramwell, A. King, and M. Walke. 1976. “Cave Palaeontology and Archaeology”, in The Science of Speleology, T.D. Ford and C.H.D. Cullingford, eds., London, pp. 495-520.

______. 2006. “New Data on the Pleistocene Cretan Deer Candiacervus sp. II (Mammalia, Cervinae),” in Late Neogene and Quaternary Biodiversity and Evolution: Regional Developments and Interregional Correlations, (Proceedings of the 18th International Senckenberg Conference, VI International Palaeontological Colloquium in Weimar), (Volume I), R.-D. Kahlke, L. Maul and P.P. Mazza, eds., (Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 256), Frankfurt am Main, pp. 131-137.

Symeonidis, N., F. Bachmayer and H. Zapfe. 1974. “Entdeckung von Zwergelefanten auf der Insel Rhodos (Ausgrabungen 1973),” Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien 78, pp. 193-202. Symeonidis, N. and P.Y. Sondaar. 1975. “A New Otter from the Pleistocene of Crete,” Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques 27, pp. 11-24.

van der Geer, A.A.E. and M. Dermitzakis. 2006. “Relative Growth of the Metapodals in a Juvenile Island Deer: Candiacervus (Mammalia, Cervidae) from the Pleistocene of Crete,” Hellenic Journal of Geosciences 41, pp. 119-25.

Taylor, R.E. 1997. “Radiocarbon Dating,” in Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, R.E. Taylor and M.J. Aitken, eds., (Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science 2), New York, pp. 65-96.

von Koenigswald, G.H.R. 1933. “Beitrag zur Kenntnis der fossilen Wirbeltiere Javas, I. Teil,” Wetenschappelijke Mededeelingen van den Dienst van den Mijnbouw in Nederlandsch Indië 23, Weltevreden, Bandoeng, pp. 1127..

Taylor, R.E. and M.J. Aitken, eds., 1997. Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, (Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science 2), New York. Theodorou, G. 1983. Οι Aπολιθωμένοι Nάνοι Eλεφάντες του Σπήλαιου Χαρκαδιό της Nήσου Τήλου Δωδεκανήσου, Ph.D. diss., University of Athens.

Willemsen, G.F. 1980. “Comparative Study of the Functional Morphology of Some Lutrinae, Especially Lutra lutra, Lutrogale perspicillata and the Pleistocene Isolalutra cretensis,” Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Series B 83, pp. 289-326.

van der Geer, A.A.E. 1999. “On the Astragalus of the Miocene Endemic Deer Hoplitomeryx from the Gargano (Italy),” Deinsea 7, pp. 325-336. ______2005a. “The Postcranial of the Deer Hoplitomeryx (Mio-Pliocene; Italy): Another Example of Adaptive Radiation on Eastern Mediterranean Islands,” (Monografies de la Societat d’História Natural de les Balears 12), Palma de Mallorca, pp. 325-336.

______. 1996. “The Cretan Otter Lutrogale cretensis”, in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers, D.S. Reese, ed., (Monographs in World Archaeology 28), Madison, pp. 153-157. Woodward, J.C. and P. Goldberg. 2001. “The Sedimentary Records in Mediterranean Rockshelters and Caves: Archives of Environmental Change,” Geoarchaeology 16, pp. 327-354.

______. 2005b. “Island Ruminants and Parallel Evolution of Functional Structures,” in Les Ongulés Holarctiques du Pliocène et du Pléistocène, (Actes Colloque international, Avignon, 19-22 Septembre 2000), E. CrégutBonnoure, ed., (Quaternaire, Hors-Série 2), Paris, pp. 231-240.

95

ALEXANDRA A.E. VAN DER GEER AND MICHALIS D. DERMITZAKIS

a. b.

Figure 3.1a,b. Cave breccias (Photo by P. Sondaar).

Figure 3.3. Lutrogale cretensis (Museum of Palaeontology and Geology, National Universityof Athens). Figure 3.2 Candiacervus species II (Museum of Palaeontology and Geology, National University of Athens).

96

CAVES AND FOSSILS: PALAEONTOLOGY IN GREEK CAVES AND FISSURES

a.

b. Figure 3.4.a-b Hippo bones-a source of worship in Cyprus (Museum of Paleontology and Geology, National University of Athens).

               

97

ALEXANDRA A.E. VAN DER GEER AND MICHALIS D. DERMITZAKIS

 

Method Datable Materials Radiocarbon Bone collagen Uranium-series Speleothem Bone (gamma-ray) ESR Tooth enamel TL Burned flint Bleached sediment (quartz, feldspar) OSL Quartz, feldspar AAR Mollusc shells

Time Range (Years) 0-50000 0-450000 0-150000 1000-2000000 5000-500000 1000-400000 1000-150000 1000-400000

Table 3.1. Methods of chronometric dating of caves and rockshelters (after Schwarcz and Rink 2001)

98

SEA-LEVEL CHANGES FROM THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC TO THE EARLY NEOLITHIC AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ON THE COLONIZATION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS

4

the surrounding mainland (Broodbank 1999; 2000; 2006). New archaeological evidence that changes our view of the early use and meaning of the eastern Mediterranean seascapes is gradually becoming available [for example, Mavridis 2007 (2009); 2010; Mavridis et al. 2012; Sampson ed. 2008; Sampson, Kaczanowska and Kozlowski eds. 2010; Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009; Strasser et al. 2010; Laskaris et al. 2011; Simmons 2012)].

Sea-level Changes From The Middle Palaeolithic To The Early Neolithic and Their Implications On The Colonization Of The Ionian Islands Maria Gkioni, Maria Geraga, Giorgos Papatheodorou, and Giorgos Ferentinos

The aim of this paper is to present a detailed reconstruction of the coastal palaeoshorelines in the Ionian Sea, western Greece, in important time slices of human and cultural evolution (Fig. 4.1) and to examine their relevance to the visitation and/or colonization of the Ionian Islands from the Middle Palaeolithic to the end of the Mesolithic period.

Introduction This paper attempts to synthesize the developments that have taken place during the last 30 years in the prehistoric human presence in the Ionian Islands in relation to the sea-level changes during the last 100 kyr B.P. (Kyr B.P. = thousand years Before Present. Present = 1950 A.D.).

Sea-Level Changes: A Complex Process The sea level has been changing significantly in the last 400,000 years, primarily in response to the development and melting of the great ice-sheets that covered the northern parts of Europe and North America. The last time the sea level was near its present level occurred about 125 kyr B.P. ago, when climate and ice volumes were similar to those of the present day (Shackleton 1987). Between the two interglacial periods the sea level was fluctuating (Fig. 4.2) and at the Last Glacial Maximum at about 18 kyr B.P. the sea level was at its lowest between 110 and 130 m below present (Fig. 4.2).

The study of sea-level changes shows that for the majority of the time i.e. between 65 and 11 kyr B.P. in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic periods (100 to 10 kyr B.P.) when the sea level was between -120 and -60 m below the present day MSL (MSL is the average (mean) height of the sea, with reference to a suitable reference surface), the present day shelf, on which the Ionian Islands lie, was emerged forming a coastal plain and that Corfu and Leukada were connected to the Greek Mainland. Therefore, the hunter-gatherers, who used or occupied these islands, have had an easy access using land bridges to reach them.

However, the sea-level changes have not been uniform all over the world and the rise rates have been variable as a consequence of the adjustment of the earth’s crust to the changing surficial loads of ice and melting water (Lambeck 1996). The total effect of the changing ice and melt water loads on the uplift and subsidence of the earth’s surface is called “glacio-hydro-isostacy” (Lambeck 1996).

The Islands of Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos, however, were insular from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Early Neolithic period, separated from each other and from the Greek Mainland by narrow straits ranging in width from 5 to 12 km (Ferentinos et al 2012). The human presence in these islands since the Middle Palaeolithic period suggests that the hunter-gatherers had the ability to sail across the straits and that they were taking the risk to travel at least to visible islands from the mainland. The overall geographical configuration of the islands in relation to the configuration of the mainland infers that the Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were probably bearing in mind the concepts of “voyaging nursery” and “autocatalysis” in their movements to the islands.

The above-mentioned spatial variability of the sea level becomes further complicated because of the tectonic instability of the earth’s crust resulting from plate tectonic motions. In Greece the sea-level changes record, evidenced by geological and archaeological data, goes back as far as 8,000 years B.P (Fleming and Webb 1986; Pirazzoli 1991). The study of these curves shows that the eustatically and isostatically forced sea-level changes have been influenced by the complex tectonic regime which prevails over Greece. This results in a spatial and temporal variation in sea rise rates all over the Aegean and the Ionian Sea (Pirazzoli 1991; Perissoratis and Konispoliatis 2003).

The implication of sea-level changes in the Mediterranean archaeology was first discussed in an article by Theerd H. van Andel in 1989 and again three years later by the same scholar together with Nick J. Shackleton (van Andel 1989; van Andel and Shackleton 1992). John F. Cherry (Cherry 1981; 1984; 1990) and Mark Patton (Patton 1996) examined the first colonization of the Mediterranean Islands in the light of their palaeogeographical relation to the mainland while Cyprian Broodbank discussed the colonization of the insular Neolithic period in the Aegean Sea in relation to the configuration of the islands and of

Methodology The spatial and temporal variability of sea-level changes in the Ionian Sea mentioned above suggests that the best way to establish a record of past positions of the sea level

99

MARIA GKIONI, MARIA GERAGA, GIORGOS PAPATHEODOROU, AND GIORGOS FERENTINOS

over the area under investigation is to infer them from sea-level curves compiled from geological and archaeological data from the area. The absence of such curves for the Ionian Sea going back to the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic period, which is approximately 100 kyr B.P., leads us to use the global sea-level curve compiled by Shackleton (Shackleton 1987). This curve was chosen to be used for the reconstruction of the palaeoshorelines in the Ionian Sea because it is in good agreement with the sea-level curve mathematically modelled for the Ionian and the Aegean Seas by Kurt Lambeck (Lambeck 1996), who took into consideration the glacio-hydro-isostatic effect for the earth’s crust.

Presentation Of Data Palaeoshorelines The study of the sea-level curve in Fig. 4.2 shows that the sea level in the Ionian Sea has been changing in the last 100 kyr B.P., thus affecting: 1. The position of the shoreline 2. The configuration of the Greek Mainland and that of the Islands in the Ionian Sea (Figs. 4.3, 4.4) The palaeoshoreline maps (Figs. 4.3, 4.4) show that during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic from 100 to 10 kyr B.P. the palaeoshorelines were below present day sea level.

Lambeck’s glacio-hydro-isostatic sea-level curve predicts that the sea level over the Ionian Sea was between 120 and 114 m at 18 kyr B.P. while at 10 kyr B.P. the values ranged from 50 to 46 m (Fig. 4.2). For the same period the relevant values of Shackleton’s curve are 120 and 50 m. However, Shackleton´s and Lambeck´s curves neither compensate for regional and local tectonic vertical movements, nor for sediment deposition at the shelf during the Last Post-Glacial transgression (Shackleton 1987; Lambeck 1996). Therefore the palaeoshorelines’ position and configuration based on the curves just mentioned above may deviate from the exact position of the palaeoshorelines of that time.

In the Middle Palaeolithic (100 to 30 kyr B.P.) the sea level was changing between -20 and -80 m below the present day MSL (Fig. 4.2). During the late part of the Middle Palaeolithic from 65 to 30 kyr B.P. the sea level was between -60 and -80 m (Fig. 4.2). In the Upper Palaeolithic period (30 to 10 kyr B.P.) the sea level was changing between -120 and -50 m below the present MSL (Fig. 4.2). During this period for nearly all the time, except for the last 2000 years the sea level was between -60 and 120 m (Fig. 4.2). During the Mesolithic period (10 to 8 kyr B.P.) the sea level was continuously rising from -50 to -20 m below the present MSL (Fig. 4.2).

The study of the Tyrrhenian marine terraces in western Greece, which were formed in the previous sea level high stand in the last Interglacial about 125 kyr B.P., has shown that at present are elevated between 5 and 35 m above present MSL which indicate a vertical uplift between 0 and 0.3 mm per year (Brooks and Ferentinos 1984; Hasiotis et al 2005; Runnels and van Andel 2003). Similarly the study of seismic profiles over the Ionian shelf in the Ionian Sea has shown that the thickness of the sediment deposited over the shelf does not exceed 15 m. Therefore the maximum expected deviation, caused by the vertical tectonic movements and the deposited on the shelf sediment in the sea level values estimated by using the curves in Fig. 4.2, is 50 m.

Palaeoshoreline Configuration In The Ionian Sea The Ionian Island group includes six large islands: Corfu, Paxi, Leukada, Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos (Figs. 4.3a, 4.4a). All six islands lie on the shelf of the Greek Mainland, which extends to the west from about 20 to 40 km (Figs. 4.3a, 4.4a). At present Corfu is separated from the Greek Mainland by a narrow strait up to 2.5 km wide and 50 m deep (Fig. 4.3a). Leukada is connected to the Greek Mainland by a barrier island, which joins together two rocky hills. They are about 5 km apart (Fig. 4.4a). Kefalonia is a large island which at the northern side is separated from Leukada by a sea strait about 8.5 km wide and 300 m deep. At the southern side, Kefalonia is separated from Zakynthos by a sea strait about 15 km wide and 80 m deep (Fig. 4.4a). Ithaka is separated from Kefalonia by a strait about 3 km wide and 160 m deep and from the Greek Mainland by a strait about 25 km wide and 350 m deep (Fig. 4.4a). Zakynthos is the southernmost island of the Ionian Island group and is separated from the Greek Mainland by an elongated strait about 17.5 km wide and 500 m deep (Fig. 4.4a).

The time-slices selected for the determination of the coastline position and island configuration are: 1. The Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transition 2. The Last Glacial Maximum time interval 3. The Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Transition 4. The Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition The first transition took place at around 30 kyr B.P., the Last Glacial Maximum at 18 kyr B.P., the second transition at around 10 kyr B.P., and the third transition at around 8.0 and 7.5 kyr B.P. (Runnels 2001).

In the Middle Palaeolithic period (100 to 30 kyr B.P.) the shoreline was changing position, but it was always extended beyond the present day to the west from about 10 to 20 km (Figs. 4.3b, 4.3c, 4.4b, 4.4c).

These dates are considered as a good average approximation of the time that all the cultural transitions mentioned above occurred, since these transitions did not take place simultaneously in the Balkan and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Corfu and Leukada were all the time connected to the Greek Mainland (Figs. 4.3b, 4.3c, 4.4b, 4.4c). Between

100

SEA-LEVEL CHANGES FROM THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC TO THE EARLY NEOLITHIC AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ON THE COLONIZATION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS Corfu and the Greek Mainland a shallow lake was formed (Fig. 4.3c) when the sea level was at around -60 m below the present MSL. Similarly a deep closed sea was formed between the Leukada and the Greek Mainland (Figs. 4.4b, 4.4c) with an outlet to the south when the sea level was between -80 and -60 m.

kada, Kefalonia, and Zakynthos (Fig. 4.1, Table 4.1) (Sordinas 1969; 1970b; 2003; Kavvadias 1984; Kourtessi-Philippakis 1996a; 1996b; Dousougli 1999). A total number of 14 sites have been detected. Eleven were assigned to the Middle Palaeolithic period, one to the Upper Palaeolithic and three to the Mesolithic period.

During the same period Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos were all the time islands of a considerably larger size than that of today (Figs. 4.4b, 4.4c). They were separated by narrow deep water straits from the mainland. The width of the straits varied from 5 to 7 km when the sea level was about -80 m below present MSL (Figs. 4.4b, 4.4c) with small islands occurring in the straits (Ferentinos et al 2012).

All sites are open-air sites except for the Upper Palaeolithic Grava Rockshelter in Corfu. A large number of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic as well as Mesolithic sites have also been found in the western coastal zone of Epirus, Aetoloakarnanía and Elis (Darlas 1994; Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997; Runnels and van Andels 2003). Most of these sites are open-air sites while a few are rockshelters (Darlas 1994; Runnels and van Andel 2003).

In the Upper Palaeolithic period (between 30 and 10 kyr B.P.) the Islands of Corfu and Leukada remained connected to the Greek Mainland (Figs. 4.3d, 4.4d). The coastal morphology in the southern part of the Ionian Sea was considerably changed especially during the Last Glacial Maximum between 21 and 18.5 kyr B.P. The presentday shelf west of Aetoloakarnanía and Elis in Peloponnese was converted to a coastal plain (Fig. 4.4d) while the three Islands Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos were connected to one large complex (Fig. 4.4d). The island complex was separated from the Greek Mainland by deep water straits, where small islands occurred (Fig. 4.4d). The three narrower straits were between: 1. Leukada and Kefalonia, about 5 km 2. Kefalonia and Elis, about 7 km 3. Zakynthos and Elis, about 7.5 km (Ferentinos et al 2012)

The description above suggests that the overall site distribution is similar in the islands and coastal zone in western Greece in the Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, and Mesolithic periods. If the settlement pattern described above is representative for the islands and the coastal zone then it can be suggested that: 1. Most of the settlement activity was occurring in openair sites especially during the Middle Palaeolithic period when climatic conditions were rather mild. 2. Caves and rockshelters were occasionally resorted probably during climatic extreme changes in the Upper Palaeolithic period. The Middle Palaeolithic Period Middle Palaeolithic lithic artifacts have been found in all the aforementioned Ionian Islands (Fig. 4.1): four sites in Corfu (Sordinas 1969; 1970 a), four sites in Leukada (Sordinas 1970b; Dousougli 1999), and in one site in Kaphalonia (Kavvadias 1984; Randsborg 2002) and Zakynthos (Kourtessi-Philippakis 1996b). All sites were open-air sites and the tools found are made by flint and are typical of the Levalloise-Mousterian technology. Therefore they belong chronologically to the Middle Palaeolithic period. In most of the sites the stone tools were produced in situ, but on the other sites, the tools that were produced are what is in general referred to as the socalled “site scatters”.

In the Mesolithic period the shoreline configuration has almost attained the same as the one today (Figs. 4.3e, 4.3f, 4.4e, 4.4f). The Island of Corfu was separated from the Greek Mainland by a narrow strait about 1.5 km wide with a small island occurring in the middle of the strait. Leukada Island remained connected to the Greek Mainland. The Islands of Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos were separated by deep water straits from the mainland (Figs. 4.4e, 4.4f). The width of the straits was much greater from the previous periods ranging from 7.5 to 15 km with small islands occurred in the straits (Ferentinos et al 2012).

The Upper Palaeolithic Period

Palaeolithic And Mesolithic Human Presence In The Ionian Sea

The Upper Palaeolithic lithic artifacts have been found only in one site in Corfu (Sordinas 1969). The site is in a 18 m deep shallow rockshelter. The stone tools have many similarities with those found in mainland Greece. Their age, based on 14C dating, is assigned to 9,710 ±95 and 8,840 ±85 kyr B.P.

In this section the current published data for the earliest human presence in the Ionian Sea Islands are briefly reviewed. It must be stressed that in the present context of human presence no differentiation is made between colonization involving permanent settlement and visitation/utilization involving either accidental or intentional short visits for exploration and exploitation of resources.

The Mesolithic Period Mesolithic material was found in one site in Corfu (Sordinas 1969), and two sites in Zakynthos (Sordinas 1969). All three sites were open-air sites. According to Augustus Sordinas the stone tools found in Corfu resembled those

Middle and Upper Palaeolithic as well as Mesolithic lithic artifacts have been found in the Islands of Corfu, Leu-

101

MARIA GKIONI, MARIA GERAGA, GIORGOS PAPATHEODOROU, AND GIORGOS FERENTINOS

was linked to the Greek Mainland. The absence of a greater number of sites in the coastal plain can be explained by the fact that at present they are submerged due to the sea-level rise. The absence of Upper Palaeolithic sites in Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos, which were insular at that time, is attributed to limited archaeological excavations in the islands rather than the inability of hunter-gatherers to sail. Taking into consideration the above as well as: (1) The exploration resources model proposed by Derek A. Sturdy, Derrick P. Webley, and Geoff N. Bailey (Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997), (2) The use of shells by hunter-gatherers, who were visiting or living in the river valleys (Bailey and Gamble 1990), (3) The use of the same raw material in the lithic industry between the sites, it is envisaged that the Upper Palaeolithic and the Middle Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers shared the same ideologies regarding exploration of resources and intersite links.

found in Zakynthos (Sordinas 1970a). Their age, based on 14 C dating, is assigned to 7,770 ±340 kyr B.P. Conclusion All the presented data has shown that major changes were taking place in the Ionian Islands and the Greek Mainland coastal configuration due to the shifting of the palaeoshorelines when prehistoric man was visiting them from the Middle Palaeolithic to the end of the Mesolithic period (Ferentinos et al 2012). In this section the impact of these changes on human movements to the islands and on sea-faring activities will be discussed. In the Islands of Corfu, Leukada, Kefalonia, and Zakynthos the human presence is known since the Middle Palaeolithic period. A large number of Middle Palaeolithic sites (8) have been found in Corfu and Leukada. These sites are comparable to the large number of sites that have been found in Epirus (Runnels and van Andel 2003), while in Kefalonia and Zakynthos only one site in each island has been found. This suggests that the environmental conditions and the available resources in the coastal plains exposed by the lowered sea level prevailing at that time were favorable for the hunter-gatherers of the Middle Palaeolithic period.

At the beginning of the Mesolithic period the sea level rose to -50 m resulting in the submergence of vast areas of the existing coastal plain during the Upper Palaeolithic period. Furthermore, the island coastal configuration has almost attained the present one. During the Mesolithic period the Island of Corfu was separated from the Greek Mainland by a narrow sea strait (Fig. 4.3e), while Leukada Island remained connected to the Greek Mainland. The Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos Islands were separated from the Greek Mainland by straits that were much wider than during the Upper Palaeolithic period.

The presence of Middle Palaeolithic sites in Kefalonia and Zakynthos, which were insular at all times, suggests that the hunter-gatherers were able to travel to these islands from the Greek Mainland by sailing across straits whose width was at least 5 km. Therefore, an extended phase of hunter-gatherers maritime activity in the Ionian Sea must be envisaged that may stretch over a comparable time span to the equivalent phase in Australia, New Guinea, and Melanesia, however, the length of crossings were of a much smaller scale (Flannery 1994; Spriggs 1997; Ferentinos et al 2012).

The human presence in the Mesolithic period appeared to be gathered along the coast of the Greek Mainland but also in the islands with one site in Corfu and two in Zakynthos (Runnels and van Andel 2003). The lithic industry of all the coastal sites in the Greek Mainland is identical and resembles the lithic industry in Corfu and Zakynthos (Sordinas 1970a; 1970b; Runnels and van Andel 2003). According to Runnels and van Andel (Runnels and van Andel 2003) the lithic industry points to hunting as the main activity and for repairing and maintaining hunting equipment or working reeds to build simple boats of the “papyrella” type (Tzalas 1989). The latter is supported by the presence of Mesolithic man in the insular Island of Zakynthos.

The research of Sordinas shows that the Middle Palaeolithic industry in Corfu (Sordinas 1969), Leukada, and in Epirus in the Greek Mainland has the same regional features. Furthermore, the study of Curtis N. Runnels and van Andel shows that the artifacts found in Zakynthos (Hagios Nikolaos) is of Mousterian technology and that they resemble the artifacts found in Epirus (Rodaki) and both are like the Mousterian (Pontinian) in Italy (Kuhn 1995). The above suggests that the hunter-gatherers of Corfu, Leukada, and Epirus were exploiting the same resources on the coastal plains and that they had intersite links (Runnels and van Andel 2003). Moreover, the most plausible suggestion is that these hunter-gatherers belong to Neanderthals (Ferentinos et al 2012).

The palaeoshoreline configuration of the Islands of Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos and of the Greek Mainland presented on the maps of Fig. 4.4 shows that from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Upper Palaeolithic period there were two axes of viable short range entrances to these islands (Ferentinos et al 2012). One enters from the north starting from the southernmost extremity of the Island of Leukada and involves a sea crossing between 5 and 7.5 km in width with two intervening islands. The other one enters from the west in the Greek Mainland and involves two to three crossings from 5 to 10 km in width with two intervening islands.

The human presence in the Upper Palaeolithic period appears to be gathered in the upland in the Greek Mainland where a large number of sites has been found along river valleys in altitudes between 300 and 500 m. (Bailey and Gamble 1990; Sturdy Webley and Bailey 1997).  In the coastal plain only one site has been found in Corfu that

102

SEA-LEVEL CHANGES FROM THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC TO THE EARLY NEOLITHIC AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ON THE COLONIZATION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS In the former case the palaeoshoreline configuration of the Islands of Kefalonia, Ithaka, and Zakynthos gives the impression of providing the perception of accessibility using the stepping stone effect. In the latter case the palaeoshoreline configuration of the islands gives the impression of a semi-insular large target, which provides the perception of an easy accessibility thus creating ideal maritime “nursery” conditions for experimental seafaring.

their movements to the islands (Keegan and Diamond 1987). Concerning the seafaring technology at this early period used by the hunter-gatherers almost any contraption would suffice for such crossings with the aid of on- and offshore breeze. Dug-outs (monoxyla) and reed-boats similar to the experimental craft (papyrella) constructed by Harry Tzalas (Tzalas 1989) might have been more suitable for mobile groups. However, the first evidence of suitable stone tools for this kind of work has been found only in the Mesolithic sites of the Islands of Corfu and Zakynthos and on the Greek Mainland.

The conclusions above suggest irrespective of the limited spatial and temporal distribution of the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic sites in the islands, that there was logic to the expansion and that the hunter-gatherers of this period could probably have been bearing in mind the concepts of “voyaging nursery” and “autocatalysis” in

103

MARIA GKIONI, MARIA GERAGA, GIORGOS PAPATHEODOROU, AND GIORGOS FERENTINOS

Bibliography

from Archaeological Data,” Geomorphology Supplement 62, pp. 1-29.

Bailey, G.N. and C. Gamble. 1990. “The Balkans at 18,000 B.P.: The View from Epirus”, in The World at 18,000 B.P. (Vol. 2), Low Latitudes, C. Gamble and O. Soffer, eds., London, pp. 148-167.

Hassiotis, T., Papatheodorou, G. and G. Ferentinos 2005. “A High Resolution Approach in the Recent Sedimentation Processes at the Head of Zakynthos Canyon, Western Greece,” Marine Geology 214, pp. 49-73.

Broodbank, C. 1999. “Colonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2), Sheffield, pp. 15-41.

Kavvadias, G. 1984. Παλαιολιθική Κεφαλoνιά. Ο πολιτισμός του Φισκάρδου, Athens.

———. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge.

Keegan, W. and J. Diamond. 1987. “Colonization of Islands by Humans: A Biogeographical Perspective,” in Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory, M. Schiffer, ed., (Vol. 10), New York, pp. 49-92.

———. 2006. “The Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activity,” JMA 19 (2), pp. 199230.

Kopaka, K. and Matzanas, C. 2009. “Palaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos, near Neighbour to Crete in Greece,” Antiquity Project Gallery 83, 321 (http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/kopaka321/index.html).

Brooks, M. and G. Ferentinos. 1984. “Tectonic and Sedimentation in the Corinth Gulf and the Zakynthos and Kefalonia Channels, Western Greece,” Tectonophysics 101, pp. 25-54.

Kourtessi-Philippakis, G. 1996a. “Η Διερεύνηση της Παλαιολιθικής Εποχής στην Ελλάδα,” Αρχαιολογία και Τέχνες 60, pp. 6-31.

Cherry, J.F. 1981. “Pattern and Process in the Earliest Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands,” PPS 47, pp. 41-68.

———. 1996b. “Νέα Στοιχεία Παλαιολιθικής Κατοίκησης στη Ζάκυνθο,” Αρχαιολογία και Τέχνες 60, pp. 77-80.

———. 1984. “The Initial Colonization of the Western Mediterranean Islands in the Light of Island Biogeography and Paleogeography”, in The Deya Conference of Prehistory: Early Settlement in the Western Mediterranean Islands and Their Peripheral Areas, W.H. Waldren, R. Chapman. J. Lewthwaite, and R.-C. Kennard, eds., (BAR-IS 229), pp. 7-23.

Kuhn, S. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. An Ecological Perspective, Princeton. Lambeck, K. 1996. “Sea-level Change and Shoreline Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Time,” Antiquity 70, pp. 588-610. Laskaris, N., A. Sampson, F. Mavridis, and I. Liritzis. 2011. “Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Seafaring in the Aegean: New Obsidian Hydration Dates by Employed the SIMS-SS method,” JAS 38, pp. 2475-2479.

———. 1990. “The First Colonisation of the Mediterranean Islands: A Review of Recent Research,” JMA 3 (2), pp. 145-221. Darlas, A. 1994. “Le Paleolithique Inferieur et Moyen de Grece,” L'Anthropologie 98 (2-3), pp. 305-328.

Mavridis, F. 2007. Ένα Αρχιπέλαγος Πολιτισμών: Η Νεολιθική Περίοδος στα Νησία του Αιγαίου. Αρχαιολογικά Δεδομένα, Θεωρία, Ερμηνεία, Ph.D. diss., University of Athens, (National Documentation Centre 2009).

Dousougli, A. 1999. “Palaeolithic Leukas,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), (BSA Studies 3), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., pp. 288292.

Mavridis, F. 2010., . Ένα Αρχιπέλαγος Πολιτισμών: Η Νεολιθική Περίοδος στα Νησία του Αιγαίου. Αρχαιολογικά Δεδομένα, Θεωρία, Ερμηνεία, Ph.D. diss., University of Athens, (National Documentation Centre 2009).Presented at the Archaeologia and Technes Journal (http://www.arxaiologia.gr/site/content.php?art id=6379, 22-2-2010).

Ferentinos, G., Gkioni, M., Geraga, M., and G. Papatheodorou. 2012 “Early Seafaring Activity in the Southern Ionian Islands, Mediterranean Sea,” JAS 39, pp. 2167-2176.

Mavridis, F., N. Laskaris, A. Papadea, O. Apostolikas, K. Trantalidou, G. Kotzamani, P. Karkanas, Y. Maniatis, I. Lititzis, and L. Kormazopoulou. 2012. “Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini: Dating of Obsidian Samples Oriented from Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Deposits with the SIMS-SS Method,” in 2nd Symposium on Archaeological Research and New Technologies, (October

Flannery, T. 1994. The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australasian Islands and People, London. Flemming, N. and C. Webb. 1986. “Tectonic and Eustatic Coastal Changes During the Last 10,000 Years Derived

104

SEA-LEVEL CHANGES FROM THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC TO THE EARLY NEOLITHIC AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ON THE COLONIZATION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS 21-23, 2010, Kalamata), N. Zαχαριάς, ed., Kalamata, pp. 121-133.

Simmons, A. 2012. “Mediterranean Island Voyages”, Science 338 (16 November 2012), pp. 895-897.

Patton, M. 1996. Islands in Time: Island Sociogeography and Mediterranean Prehistory, London and New York.

Sordinas, A. 1969. “Investigations of the Prehistory of Corfu During 1964-1966,” BalkSt 10, pp. 393-424.

Perissoratis, C. and N. Konispoliatis. 2003. “The Impacts of Sea-level Changes During Latest Pleistocene and Holocene Times on the Morphology of the Ionian and Aegean Seas,” Marine Geology 196, pp. 145-156.

———. 1970a. Stone Implements from Northwestern Corfu, Greece, (Memphis State University Anthropological Research Center Occasional Papers 4), Memphis. ———. 1970b. “Λίθινα Eργαλεία από την Προϊστορική Ζάκυνθο,” Κerkyraika Hronika 15, pp. 122-130.

Pirazzoli, P.A. 1991. World Atlas of Holocene Sea-level Changes, (Elsevier Oceanography Series 58), Amsterdam.

———. 2003. “The ‘Sidarian’: Maritime Mesolithic Non-geometric Microliths in Western Greece,” in The Greek Mesolithi: Problems and Perspectives, N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., (BSA Studies 10), London, pp. 89-97.

Randsborg, K. 2002. Kefalonia: Archaeology and History: The Ancient Greek Cities, (Acta Arcaeologica IV2), Copenhagen.

Strasser, T., N. Thompson, E. Panagopoulou, P. Karkanas, C. Runnels, F. McCoy, E. Murray, and P., Wegmann, K. 2010. “Stone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean. Evidence from the Plakias region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete,” Hesperia 79, pp. 145-190.

Runnels, C.N. 2001. “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the Advent of Neolithic,” in Aegean Prehistory. A Review, Τ. Cullen ed., Princeton, , pp. 225-258. Runnels, C.N. and Τ.H. van Andel. 2003. “The Early Stone Age of the Nomos of Preveza: Landscape and Settlement,” in Landscape Archaeology in Southern Epirus, Greece 1, J. Wiseman and K. Zachos, eds., (Hesperia Suppl. 32), Princeton, pp. 47-134.

Spriggs, M. 1997. The Islands Melanesians, Peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific, Oxford. Sturdy, D.A., D.P. Webley and G.N. Bailey. 1997. “The Palaeolithic Geography of Epirus,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 587-614.

Sampson, A., ed., 2008. The Cave of the Cyclops, Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece (Vol. 1). Intra Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution, (INSTAP Academic Press), Philadelpheia.

Tzalas, H. 1989. “Ο Δρόμος του Οψιανού με ένα Παπυρένιο Σκάφος στις Κυκλάδες,” Αrchaeologia 32, pp. 11-20.

Sampson, A., Kaczanowska, M. and J. Kozlowski., eds., 2010. The Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic Settlement of Maroulas (Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences), Krakow.

van Andel, T.H. 1989. “Late Quaternary Sea-level Changes and Archaeology,” Antiquity 63, pp. 733-745.

Shacketon, N.J. 1987. “Oxygen Isotopes, Ice Volumes and Sea Level,” Quaternary Science Reviews 6, pp. 183190.

van Andel, T.H. and J.C. Shackleton. 1982. “Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic Coastlines of Greece and the Aegean,” JFA 9, pp. 445-454.

105

MARIA GKIONI, MARIA GERAGA, GIORGOS PAPATHEODOROU, AND GIORGOS FERENTINOS

  Figure 4.1. Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in the Ionian Islands (Data from Cherry 1981; 1990, Dousougli 1999, Gubuk 1986, Kavvadias 1984, Kourtessi-Philipakis 1996, Sordinas 1969; 1970; 2003).

106

SEA-LEVEL CHANGES FROM THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC TO THE EARLY NEOLITHIC AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ON THE COLONIZATION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS

  Figure 4.2. Estimate of eustatic sea-level change (dashed curve) for the past 150000 years based on observed shore-line agedepth relations and models of ice sheets melting for the last 18000 years and on oxygen isotope data from deep-sea cores (after Shackleton 1987) for the earlier period. The solid curve represents the predicted sea-level variations for Paros in the Cyclades (modified from Lambeck 1996).

107

MARIA GKIONI, MARIA GERAGA, GIORGOS PAPATHEODOROU, AND GIORGOS FERENTINOS

(a). present day m.s.l.  

 

(e). -50 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic transition).  

(b) -80 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline.    

(c) -60 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline.

(d). 120 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Last Glacial Maximum).

 

(f). -20 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition).

Figure 4.3. Palaeoshoreline map of north-western Greece and Corfu in the Ionian Sea at five key moments from Middle Palaeolithic to Early Neolithic.

108

 

 

 

SEA-LEVEL CHANGES FROM THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC TO THE EARLY NEOLITHIC AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ON THE COLONIZATION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS  

  (a) present day m.s.l..    

  (d). -120 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Last Glacial Maximum).  

  (b). -100 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline.    

  (e).-50 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic transition).  

  (c). -80 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline.

  (f) -20 m below present day m.s.l. palaeoshorline (Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition).

Figure 4. 4. . Palaeoshoreline map of western Greece and the Ionian Islands (Lefkada, Kefallinia, Ithaka and Zakynthos) at five key moments from Middle Palaeolithic to Early Neolithic. .

109

MARIA GKIONI, MARIA GERAGA, GIORGOS PAPATHEODOROU, AND GIORGOS FERENTINOS

Leukada  Kefalonia  Zakynthos 

I ON I AN                                         I S L ANDS 

Corfu 

 

  Middle Palaeolithic  Upper Palaeolithic  Agios  Georgios  (open‐air  Grava                       site)  (rockshelter) 

Mesolithic 

Gardiki (open‐air site) 

  

  

Kombitsi (open‐air site) 

  

  

Rekini (open‐air site)     Cape  Doukato  (open‐air  site)    

     

 

 

 

Englouvi (open‐air site) 

  

  

Kariotes (open‐air site) 

  

  

Toukalades (open‐air site)    

  

Fiskardo (open‐air site)     Agios  Nilolaos  (open‐air  site)    

  

  

Sidari (open‐air site) 

Vasiliko (open‐air site)      Kalamaki (open‐air site) 

  

Table 4.1. Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in the Ionian Islands (data from Cherry 1981; 1990, Dousougli 1999, Gubuk 1986, Kavvadias 1984, Kourtessi-Philipakis 1996, Sordinas 1969; 1970; 2003).

110

PART II: Caves In Prehistory

ANTIGONE PAPADEA the Maara springs - located on the northern border of the Drama Basin in eastern Macedonia (Fig. 5.1), an Upper Pleistocene faunal assemblage and a typical Mousterian stone industry characterized by the predominance of quartz and the absence of the Levallois reduction sequence were uncovered. They were dated at ±50 kyr B.P. (Thousand years Before Present, Present = 1950 A.D.) (Trantalidou 1996, 19).

5 The Use Of Palaeolithic Caves And Rockshelters In Greece: A Synopsis Antigone Papadea

Introduction

Thessaly

The reconstruction of the Palaeolithic settlement patterns in Greece is very difficult as the available evidence still needs to be enriched. However, investigation of caves and rockshelters played an important role in revealing different modes of landscape exploitation by Palaeolithic human groups. Data were further enlightened by regional surface surveys (for the history of research, see Kourtessi-Philippakis 1986; Darlas 1994; Runnels 1995; Papagianni 2000, for some of the most recent surface surveys, see Harvati et al. 2008; Runnels, Karimali and Cullen 2003) and salvage excavation of open-air sites (Lynkovanlis 2006; Palli 2006; Palli and Papadea 2002; Darlas et al. 2006).

The Theopetra Cave The cave is situated in an isolated hill at the northwest edge of the Thessalian Plain in central Greece (Figs. 5.1, 5.2). It lies at an altitude of 300 m ASL (above sea level) and faces north. Excavations, under the direction of Dr. Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, yielded a long cultural sequence containing Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic remains (KyparissiApostolika 1999; ed. 2006). This occupational record is unique for Thessaly and therefore very important for the understanding of this period in the Greek Mainland (for a detailed presentation of the stratigraphy of the site, see Karkanas et al. 1999; Karkanas and Weiner 2006).

My aim in this paper is to present briefly the use of Palaeolithic caves and rockshelters in Greece documented by the archaeological research. As evidence from the Lower Palaeolithic is scarce, this article will be focused on the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic period. It should be noted that a human fossil cranium, whose age and classification remain a continuous cause of controversy [it was characterized by Poulianos (1982, 21) and Darlas (1994, 380) as Homo erectus; as Homo neanderthalensis by Marinos, Giannouli and Sotiriadi (1965) or as an archaic form of Homo sapiens by Stringer, Howell and Melentis (1979, 250-251), for the various estimates of the age of the Petralona skull, see Hennig et al. 1981; Runnels 1995, 706], was found out of an archaeological context in the Petralona Cave in the Chalkidike Peninsula of northeast Greece. This cave is the only one, which until present day has yielded cultural remains of the Lower Palaeolithic so far in Greece (Fig. 5.1). The excavations undertaken by Dr. Aris N. Poulianos, after the discovery of the skull, revealed faunal remains characteristic of the first part of the Middle Pleistocene period and a quite archaic lithic assemblage (Darlas 1994, 308). A brief description of the caves mentioned in this paper is presented below (Fig. 5.1).

The thermoluminescence age (see also the section on luminescence dating in van der Geer and Dermitzakis in this volume) estimates indicate that the first occupation of the site took place at the end of isotopic stage 6 or more probable at the beginning of isotopic stage 5 (Valladas et al. 2007). This is the oldest dated evidence for the Greek Middle Palaeolithic period. More than 60 radiocarbon dates were also obtained in order to determine the human use of the cave during the Pleistocene and the Holocene periods (Facorellis, Kyparissi-Apostolika and Maniatis 2001; Facorellis and Maniatis 2006). Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblages were recorded from layer II1 to layer II8 (Panagopoulou 1999; 2006). Non local radiolarite of high quality was mainly used for the manufacture of stone artifacts. The industries were classified into three lithic phases. Lithic phase 1 (layer II1) is characterized as a Quina phase because the production of Quina scrapers on standardized morphologically blanks was the aim of the reduction sequence (Panagopoulou 2006). Lithic phase 2 (layers II2-II3) is characterized as Levallois-Mousterian and reflects a more intensive use of the site. The use of the Levallois methods for the production of blanks is the prominent characteristic of this phase. A wide variety of tool types are represented, where sidescrapers dominate. The in situ knapping activity was focused on the production and maintenance of tools, while the use of the raw materials is very frugal. Lithic phase 3 (layers II4-II8) is characterized as Terminal Middle Palaeolithc/ “Transitional”. Both the Levallois unipolar method and the prismatic bipolar core reduction sequence were used. The tool inventory is characterized by the presence of Middle Palaeolithic tool types enriched by Upper Palaeolithic ones. However, the new thermoluminescence age estimates suggest that the

The Archaeological Evidence Macedonia The Maara Cave (Cave Of Aggitis) In Macedonia there is only one excavated cave, which contained Middle Palaeolithic remains in layers of terra rossa that lie approximately 10 m below the present surface (Trantalidou 1996; Trantalidou and Darlas 1992) (Fig. 5.1). In particular in the Maara Cave (Cave of Aggitis) - also known for the Aggitis River that starts at

112

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS lithic assemblage from layer 4 characterized as Transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic may be the result of post- depositional mixing of cultural material (Valladas et al. 2007, 307). A very rare anthropological finding was recorded in Middle Palaeolithic layer II2. Human footprints belonging to children between two to four years old were uncovered (Manolis et al. 2006), and of interest two of these showed that the prints were made by covered feet.

while the basal Mousterian industry was found in the lower part (for the re-valuation of the micro-Mousterian, see Papaconstantinou 1988). A radiocarbon date obtained from the lower part of the Upper Palaeolithic sequence gives a minimum date at 26100 ± 900 B.P. (Bailey et al. 1983a, 21). The only reliable radiocarbon determination for the Upper Mousterian (layer 14) seems to be the > 39,900 B.P. date (for the radiocarbon dates obtained during the original excavation, see Bailey et al. 1983a, 21, for problems of chronological reliability, see Papagianni 2000, 24). Thermoluminescence dates on burnt flint gave an average age of 98,500 ± 12,000 B.P. for the Basal Mousterian (layer 18) (Bailey, Papaconstantinou and Sturdy 1992; Huxtable et al. 1992).

The Upper Palaeolithic deposits were seriously disturbed by deep channels formed by the invasion of karstic waters (Karkanas et al. 1999; Karkanas and Weiner 2006). The thermoluminescence age estimate of 57 ±6 kyr B.P. attributes layer II11 to the Middle Palaeolithic whereas the radiocarbon date of ca. 25 kyr B.P. belonging to the Upper Palaeolithic (Valladas et al. 2007). The date and provenance of several clay objects remain an open issue. They were usually cylindrical in shape and of unknown use from unit II11 (Kyparissi-Apostolika ed. 2006, 22). A severely damaged skeleton of a young male Homo sapiens sapiens was also found and was dated to ca. 14 kyr B.P (Stravopodi, Manolis and Kyparissi-Apostolika 1999; Stravopodi and Manolis 2006). The low artifact density is a prominent feature of the Upper Palaeolithic lithic assemblages (Adam 1999b; 2006). The small numbers of cores and technical pieces, the restricted types of tool inventory, and the presence of exotic raw materials characterize the stone artifacts. The integrity of the assemblages is not certain as the channels eroding the Upper Palaeolithic deposits, caused artifacts admixture. A pair of perforated deer canines comprises the non utilitarian organic artifacts of the Upper Palaeolithic remains (KyparissiApostolika ed. 2006, 22).

The Upper Palaeolithic stone industries are the earliest yet documented ones in Epirus (Adam 1989; 1997). Different types of flint were used. Some varieties are represented by all the stages of manufacture while others were introduced in the form of blanks or finished tools. The assemblages are flake dominated. There is a clear preference for flakes to blades as tool blanks. The tool inventory is restricted with the predominance of a limited range of backed bladelet types. Both Mousterian lithic assemblages are characterized by the exploitation of local raw materials (mainly flint and occasionally quartz and quartzite pebbles) collected from the nearby Louros River (Papaianni 2000, 25-29; Gowlett and Carter 1997; Papaconstantinou 1988; Papaconstantinou and Vasilopoulou 1997). There are also other striking similarities between the two industries such as the implement size and the predominance of sidescrapers as well as the partially retouched flakes in the tool inventory (Gowlett and Carter 1997, 453; Papaconstantinou and Vasilopoulou 1997, 461). However, a distinctive technological change separates the two assemblages. Flakes and blades produced with the classical Levallois method disappear in the Upper Mousterian. The “pseudo Levallois” points or “Asprochaliko flakes”, the systematic products of a particular reduction sequence (the “Asrpochaliko” method) were largely preferred as blanks for the manufacture of tools (Papaconstantinou 1988, 145-148; Papaconstantinou and Vasilopoulou 1997, 461-463).

Apart from the Theopetra Cave in Thessaly and the Maara Cave (Cave of Aggitis) in Macedonia, the majority of the other excavated caves presented in this article, are located in Epirus and in the Peloponnese. These two regions are the most intensively explored areas of Palaeolithic Greece. Epirus Asprochaliko Rockshelter The Asprochaliko Rockshelter (Fig. 5.1) is facing south and is situated on the west bank of the Louros River at ca. 200 m ASL. Middle and Upper Palaeolithic remains were documented during excavations between 1964 and 1966 under the direction of Eric S. Higgs (Higgs and VitaFinzi 1966; Bailey et al. 1983a, 20, for problems of resolution and stratigraphic reliability of the Asprochaliko material, see Papagianni 2000, 23-24).

The Upper Palaeolithic faunal remains are characterized by the predominance of red deer and caprines (Bailey et al. 1983a, 34-35, table 9; Bailey et al. 1983b, 69-70; Kotjabopoulou 2001, 133-136). In the Upper Mousterian fallow deer (Dama dama) is the predominant species followed by red deer (Bailey et al. 1983a, 34-35, table 9; Bailey et al. 1983b, 69-70), while the majority of the Basal Mousterian faunal assemblage is comprized of red deer. The presence of rhinoceros (Stephanorhinus, formely Dicerorhinus, kirchbergensis) is also characteristic for the Basal Mousterian. The ungulates were the preferred food resource throughout the Palaeolithic sequence. Very few organic artifacts like a bone point have

The Upper Palaeolithic layers yielded an Upper Palaeolithic industry rich in backed bladelets. After a sterile layer representing a hiatus in occupation, the Middle Palaeolithic deposits resting upon the bedrock, were uncovered. The upper part contained the Upper Mousterian industry described as micro-Mousterian in the original report,

113

ANTIGONE PAPADEA the sequence. It is suggested that there was a selective transportation of the high utility parts of red deer, which were hunted and butchered at some distance from Kastritsa, to the site. These were then heavily processed in order to extract meat, fat, and marrow. Some of the animals such as the badgers and the foxes were also hunted for their pelts.

been recorded (Bailey et al. 1983a, 33). Non utilitarian artifacts such as a badly weathered Upper Palaeolithic long bone splinter with a round perforation are generally underrepresented throughout the sequence (Kotjabopoulou and Adam 2004, 40). Kastritsa Rockshelter

The group of non utilitarian objects (stratum 5 onwards) is comprised of modified marine shells (the presence of marine shells “testifies systems of contact or a network of circulation of materials”, Kotjabopoulou and Adam 2004, 48), modified animal teeth, two perforated stone artifacts, and worked bones of symbolic character (Kotjabopoulou and Adam 2004, 40-43).

(for the definition of the site as a rockshelter, see Galanidou et al. 2000; Bailey et al. 1983a, 15). The north-northwest facing Kastritsa Rockshelter is located in the Ioannina Basin at ca. 470 m ASL (Fig. 5.1). It lies in the side of a limestone hill and used to be situated on the southern shore of Lake Pamvotis but that part of the lake has now been drained. Excavations under the direction of Higgs in 1966 and 1967 revealed Upper Palaeolithic remains (Higgs et al. 1967; Bailey et al. 1983a). The majority of the finds and habitation features were recorded from the terrestrial deposits of the upper unit of the following sequence: stratum 1 (layers 1-6), stratum 3 (layers 7, 11), stratum 5 (layers 12-15). Evidence of human occupation also comes from the underlain unit 2: stratum 7 (layers 16-20) - upper stratum 9 (layers 21-26) (for a detailed presentation of the site’s stratigraphy, see Bailey et al. 1983a, 25-26). According to recent accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) age estimates, the human use of the cave began before or around 23,880 ± 100 B.P. The site was occupied until at least 15,930 ± 130 (for the 1960s radiocarbon dating framework, which was put in question by the accelerator mass spectrometry age estimates, see Higgs et al. 1967, 21; Bailey et al. 1983a, 21, for further discussion of the chronological determinations, see Kotjabopoulou and Adam 2004, 38).

Klithi Rockshelter The Klithi Rockshelter is spacious and faces south. It is located at 430 m ASL in a mountainous environment on the bank of the Voidomatis River in the lower Vikos Gorge (Fig. 5.1). The excavation under the direction of Geoff N. Bailey in 1983-1988 revealed Upper Palaeolithic remains (Bailey et al. 1984; 1986; Bailey 1997a, for a detailed description of the stratigraphy of the site, see Bailey and Woodward 1997). The most significant habitation feature of the site is the repeatedly use of a major hearth at the back of the site (Galanidou 1997a; 1997c). A series of 25 radiocarbon dates indicate that the main occupation of the site expands from about 16,500 to 13,500 B.P. with a possible extension at the latest to about 12,400 B.P. and with traces of re-occupation at about 10,400 B.P. during the Younger Dryas episode (Gowlett, Hedges and Housley 1997).

Habitation features such as postholes, chipping floors, hearths, and tool caches were found (Galanidou 1997b; 1997c). A wide range of local and non local flints was used for the manufacture of stone artifacts throughout the sequence (Adam 1989; 1997; 1999b; Elefanti 2003). The lithic assemblages show a diachronic technological and typological differentiation. Laminar blank production is well attested throughout the sequence. Backed bladelets are the most common types of tools, while geometric microliths are absent. The fragmentation of blanks is attested by the microburin technique (stratum 3 onwards). In the uppermost part of the sequence (stratum 1) a greater focus in hunting activities is observed (Adam 1999a, 146). The lithic tool kit was completed by bone/antler artifacts (Adam and Kotjabopoulou 1997). The abundance of projectiles points, whose manufacture was taken place in situ, underlies that the bone industry is primarily a hunting tool kit.

The lithic and organic assemblages as well as the composition of the faunal remains do not show any significant differentiation throughout the sequence. The Late Upper Palaeolithic stone assemblages were mainly manufactured on local Voidomatis type flint (Roubet 1997a; 1999; Adam 1997; 1999b; Elefanti 2003). Exotic flint, usually of better quality, is also present in small quantities. The tool inventory is dominated by backed bladelets types. The microburin technique as well as the Transversal Klithian Fracture (TFK) that was identified for the first time in the Klithi Rockshelter was used for blank segmentation (Roubet 1997b). Microscopic use wear analysis suggests that the lithic tool kit was used for a limited number of activities focused on hunting (Moss 1997). The composition of the bone industry with mainly needles and awls indicates the systematic process of hide and the manufacture of clothes (the manufacture of needles and spatulae was taken place in situ, see Adam and Kotjabopoulou 1997).

Red deer, mainly prime adults, is the most common species and food resource throughout the Upper Palaeolithic sequence followed by Equus hydruntinius, Bos primigenius, and caprines (Kotjabopoulou 2001, 47-111). Roe deer and wild boar are not numerous but water birds of various kinds emphasize the significance of the Pamvotis Lake as an additional source of food. Animal exploitation strategies remained unchanged throughout

Ibex (Capra ibex) and chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) were the primary food resources (Gamble 1997). Fish, birds, lagomorphs, and beaver, which were probably hunting for its pelt (Bailey 1997b, 656), were infrequent

114

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS dietary supplements. Only the caprine parts of medium to high food value were transported back to the site. Their bones were further processed in order to extract more meat and marrow or to obtain a casual snack (the interpretation of passive snacking refers to the phalanges of Capra, see Gamble 1997, 237). The non utilitarian assemblage is consisted by modified marine (see Kotjabopoulou 2001, 47-111) and freshwater shells, perforated red deer teeth, incised bones, and an incised horn core of symbolic meaning (Adam and Kotjabopoulou 1997; Kotjabopoulou and Adam 2004, 43-46).

Voidomatis River and enriched by non local raw materials. A diachronic differentiation in terms of techno typological features and composition is observed. The microburin technique connected to the production of bladelets tools, which dominate the tool inventory, is testified in unit IIIb. The character of the tool kit suggests a specialization towards the manufacture and maintenance of hunting equipment. Bone tools such as the awl are also present (Kotjabopoulou, Panagopoulou and Adam 1997, 435). Caprines (especially chamois) and deer represent the principal hunting targets (Kotjabopoulou 2001). Fish and small prey were secondary dietary supplements. Low utility parts of ruminants were not brought to the site with the exception of the heads of mature red deer males. Bones were heavily processed in order to extract the marrow. Marine (see Kotjabopoulou 2001, 47-111) and freshwater shells and tooth specimens, non modified sea shell imports, and a stone bead comprise the non utilitarian organic assemblage (Kotjabopoulou and Adam 2004, 46).

Megalakkos Rockshelter Megalakkos is a small cavity situated approximately 100 m up a tributary ravine of the Voidomatis River and lie very close to the site of Klithi (Fig. 5.1). A small sampling excavation in 1986 revealed Upper Palaeolithic remains (Sinclair 1997; 1999; Woodward 1997). The dates of 16,100 ± 160 B.P. (stratum 4) and 15,410 ±120 B.P. (stratum 2) show that the Megalakkos and the Klithi Rockshelters are essentially contemporaneous (Gowlett, Hedges and Housley 1997, 28 for an Early Holocene date of 8,800 ±100 B.P). The two sites share many similarities related to typological features of the lithic assemblages as well as to animal representation and bone processing (Sinclair 1997, 415; 1999, 189). The stone industries made on local and exotic cherts are typical Late Upper Palaeolithic. However, a differentiation in terms of frequency of certain tool types, raw material procurement, and reduction was documented between the two richest in finds sedimentary units (units 4, 6) (Sinclair 1997, 417-419). Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) and Ibex (Capra ibex) dominate the faunal assemblages (Sinclair 1997), while non organic artifacts were recorded.

Ionian Islands Grava Rockshelter The large Grava Rockshelter is facing south and is located on the southern slopes of Mount Hagios Mathaios in southern Corfu (Fig. 5.1). It revealed a Late Palaeolithic occupation (for the accelerator mass spectrometry estimates that indicate use of the cave in the 9th millennium B.P., see Gowlett, Hedges and Housley 1997, tables 2.1, 2.2; Bailey 1999) but only the upper layers of the site were excavated under the direction of Dr. Augustus Sordinas in 1966 (Sordinas 1969). The lithic assemblages were recently classified into two phases, one similar to Kastritsa stratum 3 and a latter phase (Adam 1998). Fragmentary bone points as well as a bead on a polished tooth were recorded. Animal food resources include red, fallow and roe deer, cattle, pig, horse, and big bovid (Sordinas 1969, 399).

Boila Rockshelter The small Boila Rockshelter is facing north and is situated at an altitude of ca. 420 m on the south river bank of the Voidomatis River at the west mouth of the lower Voidomatis Gorge (Fig. 5.1). The excavation of the site lasted from 1993 to 1997 under the direction of Dr. Eleni Kotjabopoulou (for the excavation, see Kotjabopoulou, Panagopoulou and Adam 1997; 1999; Kotjabopoulou 2001).

Attika Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini The Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini is situated at an altitude of ca. 300 m ASL in the industrial park of the area, with a panoramic view of the Skaramanga Mountain and the Gulf of Eleusis (Fig. 5.3). A research began in 2006 under the direction of Fanis Mavridis and Lina Kormazopoulou, Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece. It revealed Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene, Neolithic and Bronze Age remains (Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2007-2008; Mavridis et al. this volume). The Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene sequence is dated from the late 11th-10th to the early 7th millennium B.C. according to the radiocarbon dates obtained so far from the cave (for more infor-

The occupation at Boila is bracketed between 14,310 ± 100 B.P. and 9,525 ±75 B.P. (Kotjabopoulou, Panagopoulou and Adam 1997; Kotjabopoulou 2001, table 4.1). Habitation features such as open and scattered small hearths, which represented short lived episodes, were also recorded. The Palaeolithic stone assemblages (units II-IIIb) are characterized as Late Epigravettian (Kotjabopoulou, Panagopoulou and Adam 1999, 202-208). Raw material procurement is focused on locally available flints of mediocre quality that was collected from the banks of the

115

ANTIGONE PAPADEA mation, see Yannis Maniatis contribution in Mavridis et al. in this volume). As the excavation is still in progress and the archaeological material is still under study, it is not wise to end up in any interpretation concerning the use of the cave. We could note, however, as far as the stone industry is concerned, the low density of the stone artifacts made mainly on radiolarite and the rarity of cores. The absence of geometric and non geometric microliths as well as the absence of the microburin technique could not be confirmed until the water sieving is completed. The production of flakes and their further modification into tools, especially retouched flakes, seems to be the primary objective of the core reduction sequences, recorded so far.

intensive use of the landscape as this raw material is found further inland (Elefanti et al. 2007, 83). The Middle Palaeolithic stone industries are characterized by a great variability of the methods of core reduction (Panagopoulou et al. 2004, 333-336). The Levallois laminar method used for the production of blades, laminar flakes, and elongated Levallois points is the main reduction sequence. Sidescrapers dominate the tool inventory followed by retouched Levallois and Mousterian points. Various methods of core reduction were also used during the Initial Upper Paleolithic (unit Ia) with Levallois and prismatic (laminar volumetric) being the most common (Elefanti et al. 2007). Typical Middle Palaeolithic tool types such as Mousterian and retouched Levallois points, sidescrapers, and notches/denticulates persist in the Initial Upper Palaeolithic assemblages, but in small numbers (Panagopoulou et al. 2004, 336-339; Elefanti et al. 2007). Retouched flakes, blades and bladelets are the most common tool types, followed by burins. Endscrapers, truncations and diagnostic types of the Aurignacian, such as carinated, nosed scrapers and Aurignacian blades, are rare.

Peloponnese Lakonis Cave Complex The Lakonis Cave Complex is comprised of a cave and some collapsed karstic formations (I-V) located on Mani Peninsula in southern Peloponnese (Fig. 5.1). Research in the area was initiated from 1999 during an interdisciplinary project of the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece in collaboration with other research institutes, under the direction of Dr. Eleni Panagopoulou (Elefanti et al. 2007; Harvati, Panagopoulou and Karkanas 2003; Panagopoulou et al. 2004).

Cervids (mainly fallow deer) hunted by the Paleolithic inhabitants dominate the faunal assemblage (Panagopoulou et al. 2004, 339-341). Both Sus and Bos (most probably primigenius), and a representative of the Rhinocerotidae family are also present. Processing of the bones is recorded too.

Excavations at Lakonis I, an east facing collapsed shelter, documented Middle (units IV-Ib) and Initial Upper Palaeolithic (unit Ia) deposits bracketed between 130,000/120,000 and 43,000 B.P.

Kleisoura Cave 1 A large number of caves and rockshelters are located in the Kleisoura Gorge in the eastern Peloponnese, where the Berbaratiotis River runs (Fig. 5.1). During a common project of the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece and the Jagiellonian University in Krakow that started in 1993, three caves were investigated (Koumouzelis et al. 1996). Excavations in Cave 1 uncovered a prehistoric sequence expanded from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic period (Koumouzelis et al. 2001a; 2001b).

Apart from a sterile level of beachrock (unit V), all the other superimposed sequence is rich in cultural remains. In particular, the uppermost unit I is composed of two major hearth complexes, which were formed by overlapping hearths, called Ib and Ia. The lower unit Ib is attributed to a terminal Middle Paleolithic occupation, while the unit Ia comprises the Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblage. These mostly undisturbed hearths suggest extended and/or repetitive episodes of burning (Panagopoulou et al. 2004, 329). A Neanderthal left lower molar tooth (LKH1) found in the Initial Upper Palaeolithic layer reinforces the hypothesis that some of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic industries were manufactured by Neanderthals (Harvati, Panagopoulou and Karkanas 2003). A strontium isotope analysis applied on the tooth suggests that the Neanderthals moved over a relatively large geographical area of at least 20 km (Richards et al. 2008).

The long Middle Palaeolithic sequence (layers VI-XX a-g from top to bedrock) is characterized by the presence of high density occupations (Koumouzelis et al. 2001a, 482500; Sitlivy et al. 2008). Radiocarbon dates from layers XVIII and XX indicate an age between 60–62 kyrs BP, although these should be considered minimum ages (Kuhn et al. 2010). Habitations features include open hearths. All Middle Palaeolithic stone industries share common technological and typological features, such as a microlithic character and the dominance of flakes. Radiolarite is the most common raw material. Apart from the off site testing and decortication stage which are absent, on site core reduction, tool production and use were recorded. The unidirectional and centripetal/discoidal debitage methods are the most preferred although the Levallois strategies are

The same raw materials, mainly locally available metamorphic basic tuffs and andesite lavas, are used in the Middle and Initial Upper Palaeolithic lithic assemblages with a higher representation of higher quality raw materials in the latter (Panagopoulou et al. 2004, 331). However the presence of flint increase in Unit Ia, indicating more

116

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS also present. A Mousterian tool kit rich in sidescrapers dominates. However, important differences were identified between the uppermost and the lowermost Middle Palaeolithic layers. In the former, various Upper Palaeolithic tools, mostly splintered pieces, were present. In the latter, the parallel use of an Upper Palaeolithic blade production together with the forementioned debitage methods was recorded. Among the faunal remains, fallow deer and other artiodactyla as well as hare have been found dominant (Koumouzelis et al. 2001a, 500). Processing of the bones is attested.

IV show a monotonic trend of increasing age from 31–34 14C kyrs BP in layer IIIe–g to 32–33 14C kyrs BP in layer IV (Kuhn et al. 2010, 39-40). The Aurignacian assemblage seems to be dated between roughly 31,000 and 33,000 14C kyrs BP. The above estimates are later than the Proto-Aurignacian from Italy, southern France, and Austria, although they are consistent with the ages of Aurignacian levels at Bacho Kiro and Temnata Caves in Bulgaria (Kuhn et al. 2010, 44). One of the most proeminent characteristic of the Aurignacian sequence of Kleisoura Cave 1 is the concentration of in situ, often superimposed hearths, among which there are basin like and clay lined hearth structures (Pawlikoski et al. 2000; Karkanas et al. 2004; Karkanas 2010; Stiner et al. 2010, 318). Wood and bark of dicotyledonous trees were the main fuel while leaf and stem of grasses were used in a lesser degree (Albert 2010, 83). It has also been proposed that the inhabitants of the cave produced embers for use in the clay hearths (Stiner et al. 2010, 318). In Early Aurgnacian (layer IV) an oval stone structure is characterized by a dense concentration of perforated shell beads and fragments of bone points inside it. This man-made shelter is surrounded by a number of hearths (Kaczanowska et al. 2010, 143-144; Stiner at al. 2010, 310, 317). Taking into consideration the above elements it has been suggested that the function of the shelter was probably ceremonial. The preference of locally available raw materials used for the manufactured of stone tools has not been changed throughout the Aurignacian sequence (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Stiner at al 2010, 310-312). Radiolarite is the most frequent raw material followed by flint. The structure of major technological groups and the main core types is similar in all Aurignacian assemblages, including cores, splintered pieces, blanks, tools, shatters and chips. Chips and shatters are the largest categories of artifacts, a feature also observed in the Early Palaeolithic occupation (layer V). The dominance of the above categories is the result of use of low quality raw materials. Moreover the high representation of chips suggests the intensive use of these materials, including the rejunevation of retouched tools. The end-scrapers are the most numerous among tools with carenated types being the most diagnostic implements. Other typical tools are bladelets with fine retouch (Dyfour type bladelets) which occur in the Early and Middle Aurignacian. The low index of bladeletes combined with the high frequency of carenate cores/endscrapers from which bladelets were produced imply that a number of bladelets were taken away from the site as replaceable tools or weapons. Worked antler and bone tools complete the Aurugnacian toolkit (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Starkovich and Stiner 2010, 126; Stiner et al. 2010, 316, 318). Most of them come from early and middle Aurignacian. It has been suggested that some production of the osseous implements took place on site. The faunal sample from the Aurignacian layers increases especially that one from layer IV (Starkovich and Stiner 2010; Stiner et al. 2010, 313-315). Ungulate species are still hunted. During the early Aurignacian (layer IV) a more varied diversity of ungulates is present while during the middle and Upper Aurignacian fallow deer dominates among them. It is in-

The Upper Palaeolithic sequence begins with the Early Upper Palaeolithic or the Uluzzian (layer V) (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Karkanas 2010). Apart from layer F in Kephalari Cave which is not published in details, layer V is the second appearance of Uluzzian occupation in Greece (Kaczanowska et al. 2010, 139). The radiocarbon dates of this layer are ambiguous. However it may be dated to more than 40 14C kyrs BP. (Kuhn et al 2010). Habitation features include flat hearths (Koumouzelis et al. 2001a, 477; Kaczanowska et al. 2010, 133-134). A stone industry made on locally available raw materials (principally radiolarite and flint in a lesser degree) and resembling to the Italian Uluzzian was recovered (Koumouzelis et al. 2001a, 480-482; 2001b, 528; Kaczanowska et al. 2010, 136-141). On site core reduction, production and repair of tools were attested. Flake cores dominate (80%) while a small number of blade-flake cores is attested (10%). Cores for blades and bladelets are rare. It is possible that ready blade/bladelet blanks were imported to the site. Splintered pieces are more frequent than cores implying that blanks were also detached by the splintered technique. Backed pieces, especially arched backed blades, and convex truncations are the diagnostic atrifacts of layer V. Other characteristic but less numerous tool types are end-scrapers, retouched flakes and blades, notched-deniculated tools and other types of truncations. Microliths are also present. The faunal sample from layer V is comparatively small (Koumouzelis et al. 2001a, 500; Starkovich and Stiner 2010). Paleolithic groups hunted a variety of ungulate species among which fallow deer (Dama dama) dominates. As for the small game items the fast-moving hares and the slow moving tortoises are the most represented. Snails are rare in the Early Upper Palaeolithic. Aquatic mollusk shells, collected from marine shorelines, fresh water habitats and Pliocene fossil sources, were used for the manufacture of personal ornaments (Stiner 2010). Their small number contrasts with the richness of species. The dominance of Dentalium shells, a common characteristic shared with the Uluzzian horizons of Grotta del Cavallo in Southern Italy, differentiate this assemblage from the later assemblages. Following the Early Upper Palaeolithic appears the in situ Aurignacian sequence, divided in the lower or early Aurignacian (layer IV), middle Arignacian (Layer IIId-g) and the Upper Aurignacian (Layers IIIa-c) (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Karkanas 2010). Dates from layers IIIe-g and

117

ANTIGONE PAPADEA teresting to note that roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) appear in very low numbers in layer IV. Small game animals are also exploited with hares being the most represented species. Tortoises disappear. Land snails are an uncommon food resource in the early and middle Aurignacian layers and become moderately abundant in the upper Aurignacian. The Paleolithic hunters of the middle and Upper Aurignacian sequence had also a strong preference for ground birds, especially rock partridge and great bustard (Bocheński and Tomek 2010). Sedges and grass seeds were possibly a part of human diet too (Albert 2010, 83). Shell ornaments made from aquatic mollusk shells characterize the Aurignacian sequence as the Early Upper Paleolithic (Stiner 2010; Stiner et al. 2010, 317). The largest group was found in the early Aurignacian (layer IV). In particular a dense concentration of shell adornments occurs inside the man-made shelter of layer IV. The diversiy of species is higher in early and middle Aurignacian while it declines in the Upper Aurignacian.

Aurignacian Uper Paleolithic (layer III), similar to those from early and middle Aurignacian, also suggesting some on site production of osseous tools. The diversity of hunted ungulates is very limited in both layers (Starkovich and Stiner 2010). Fallow deer is the most frequent species among them. Hares were also exploited with a greater representation during layer III. The number of land snails increases a lot through layer III. Other food resources are ground birds, especially rock partridge and great bustard (Bocheński and Tomek 2010; Starkovich et al. 2010). Their larger percentage occurs in layer III. Shell ornaments occur in both layers just as the previous periods but the diversity of species used for personal adornments is restricted (Stiner 2010; Stiner et al. 2010, 317). After a depositional/ erosional hiatus an Epigravettian assemblage (layer II) appears (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Karkanas 2010; Stiner at al 2010). This is disturbed by human activities, frequent truncations and disturbance. There are no reliable radiocarbon dates (Kuhn et al. 2010; Kaczanowska et al. 2010). No hearths in situ were found (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Karkanas 2010). The preference of locally avaible raw materials, radiolarites principally, followed by flints, for the production of stone tools doesn’t change (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Stiner at al. 2010). Shatters, chips and small flakes are the largest groups of technological Epigravettian categories just as the previous assemblages. Blanks were detached by single platform cores while double platform cores are less frequent. Splintered technique is also used but it is not as common as before. Various backed blades, parageometric forms and shouldered implements are the most diagnostic types of the Erigravettian industry. Antler and bone tools are not very common (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Stiner at al. 2010). The diversity of hunted ungulates is high although fallow deer is the most represented prey (Starkovich and Stiner 2010; Stiner et al. 2010). Hares and rock partridge constitute the most exploited small game animals. Land snails consumption is not very frequent but the diversity of species is high. Shell ornaments exsist in the Epigravettian assemblage but the represented species are limited (Stiner 2010).

Following the Upper Aurignacian levels two layers, layer III and layer III appear (Kaczanowska et al. 2010; Karkanas 2010; Stiner at al 2010). According to the only reliable radiocarbon date (sample AA73821) layer III is dated at 31,460 ± 460 BP (Kuhn 2010, 38, 39). Habitation features are represented by clay lined hearths present in both layers. There are also paved or stone-lined hearths in layer III (Kaczanowska et al. 2010, 169, 173, 198). Stone artifacts are produced from the locally available raw materials, mainly radiolarites and flint in a lesser degree as in the previous periods (Kaczanowska et al. 2010). Chunks outnumber the other technological categories just as in the previous assemblages of the site. Layer III contains a non-Aurignacian Upper Paleolithic industry while the industry in layer III was described as one of the earliest industries with backed bladelets in the Mediterranean, belonging to the Gravettian tradition. The flake blank production, a lack of bladelet cores and the rare appearance of carinated cores/end-scrapers differentiate the stone industry of layer III from the Aurignacin assemblage. Moreover, the absence of systematic production of bladelets and blades and the dominance of flake technology distinguish layer III from layer III. Backed bladelets, truncations and microretouched bladelets are also absent from layer III. The lithic assemblage from layer III can be described as a flake industry using the single and double platform core technique with a pereference of endscrapers, notched-denticulated tools, retouched flakes and side-scrapers. The presence of three arched backed pieces on flakes suggests links with the final Uluzzian. As it is already mentioned backed blades and bladelets are the most diagnostic tool types in layer III, although endscrapers is the most large group of tools. These Gravetoid backed bladelets as well as the micro-retouched or unretouched Aurignacian bladelets were used as projectile hunting weapons and as insetrs for cutting or scraping tools (Stiner at al. 2010, 311). Worked antler and bone tools are also present in both layers (Kaczanowska et al. 2010). It must be noted that the percentage of worked antler items and antler fragments is high in the non-

Completing the presentation of the Upper Paleolithic Kleisoura Cave 1 some general remarks must be made. First of all the almost unchangeable composition of raw materials throughout the Upper Palaeolithic sequence and the selection of locally available raw materials sugget a fairly limited range of mobility of the inhabitants of the cave (Stiner et al. 2010, 311). Secondly, there is no evidence of specialized or highly seasonal hunting of ungulates in all Upper Paleolithic layers (Starkovich and Stiner 2010; Stiner et al. 2010). On the contrary opportunistic hunting of a variety of ungulate species, one or few at a time is observed. The small game data suggest a pattern of increasing dietary breadth. The variation of hunted animals observed in the Upper Paleolithic sequence is due to a combination of environmental factors and human hunting pressures. The latter is supported by the disappearance of slow moving species like tortoises after the Early Upper Paleolithic and an increasing use of

118

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS fast-moving, highly productive animals such as hare and partridge. Almost all meaty part of the large game animals were transported to the site for processing. Their axial elements are left at kill sites. The evidence that animals of diverse ages were hunted indicates that relatively non-selective hunting of ungulate age groups. It is important to add that all the ornament assemblages throughout the Upper Palaeolithic sequence is characterized by the presence of finished products almost totally and worn from use. Many of them arrived to the cave attached to organic materials or human bodies as the presence of cord-wear implies. They are “high-graded” or selected by humans for harmony in color, form and quality. The changes in species diversity seem to reflect natural changes in coastline habitat structures of the region.

exploitation strategies remained unchanged throughout units III and IV. Caves In The region Of The Itylo Bay In the Mani Peninsula, a number of caves in the Itylo bay and in the north of it were investigated (Darlas and Psathi 2008). Test pits have been carried out in six of them (Kolominitsa, Kastanis, Skoini 4, Skoini 3, Tripsana and Melitzia) revealing Upper Palaeolithic remains, most of which belong to the Gravettian-Epigravettian phase. Moreover an Aurignacian industry was only found in the cave of Kolominitsa. The small dimensions of the stone implements and the small number of blades/bladelets are the most proeminent characteristics of the majority of stone artifacts. Backed bladelets are the most frequent tool types of the Gravettian-Epigravettian levels. Geometric microliths and the burin technique are absent. Ungulates were hunted by the Paleolithic inhabitants of the caves. The evidence from the faunal remains indicates the progressive replacement of fallow deer (Dama dama) by red deer (Cervus elaphus) as well as the increase of hare and birds. The presence of hematite suggests the on site production of red ochre.

Kalamakia Cave The littoral Kalamakia Cave, which was excavated under the direction of Dr. Andreas Darlas, is facing northwest and is located at 2.30 m ASL on Mani Peninsula in southern Peloponnese (Darlas 2007; Darlas and de Lumley 2004). The stratigraphic sequence of the site is characterized by the interchange of marine and continental deposits (Darlas 2007). The marine deposit at the base of the sequence is attributed to isotopic stage 5e and is capped by a Tyrrhenian beach from isotopic stage 5c. The superimposed continental deposits (units III, IV) are rich in anthropogenic Middle Palaeolithic remains. The only reliable date so far comes from the upper part of layer IV dated at 40,000 B.P. Several anthropological findings such as a third upper left molar (unit III), six teeth, a cranium fragment, a fibula fragment, and a lumbar vertebra (unit IV) were recorded (Darlas 2007). Numerous superimposed occupational surfaces were found in unit IV (Darlas 2002). They are characterized by the presence of habitations features such as hearths and stone constructions.

Franchthi Cave The Franchthi Cave is located on the western edge of the promontory that overlooks the Bay of Koilada in the northeastern Peloponnese (Fig. 5.1). The spacious, coastal, northwest facing cave lies at ca. 12.50 m ASL. Excavations at the site were conducted between 1967 and 1979 under the direction of Thomas W. Jacobsen of the Indiana University and Michael Hamilton Jameson of the University of Pennsylvania (Jacobsen and Farrand 1987). The Franchthi Cave and the aforementioned Theopetra Cave are the only caves in Greece, where human occupation is documented form the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic (for the depositional history of the cave, see Farrand 1999).

The general characteristics of the Mousterian lithic assemblage do not differentiate from unit III to unit IV. Various raw materials like flint, andesite, quartz, and quartzite were used for the production of the lithic implements (Darlas 2002). In particular the non local green andesite (Lapis lacedaemonius) was used for the manufacture of Levallois flakes (Darlas and de Lumley 1999). The initial stages of the reduction sequences are not attested on the site. The in situ knapping activity was focused on the retouch and maintenance of tools. The lithic assemblage is characterized by the presence of the Levallois debitage oriented towards the production of flakes but also the débitage discoide is represented. Sidescrapers dominate the tool inventory. A very particular type of scraper manufactured on marine shells (Callista chione) was found only in one occupational surface.

The Middle Palaeolithic period is attested only by few lithic artifacts (Perlès 1987). The Upper Palaeolithic occupational history is divided into two phases. During the first phase, dated from about 25,000 to 17,000 years ago, the human use of the site was limited (Jacobsen and Farrand 1987). The faunal remains are dominated by equids (Equus hydruntinus) and cervids (Cervus elaphus) (Payne 1975, 122). The lithic assemblage (Lithic phases I, II, III) is manufactured on local raw materials, which consists mainly of flint (Perlès 1987). Lithic phase I (possibly Aurignacian) is characterized by the presence of carinated endscrapers and twisted bladelets, while backed bladelets dominate Lithic phases II and III. During the second phase bracketed between 13,000 to 10,000 years ago, human occupation of the site was more intense as it is suggested by the increase of cultural remains. Equids and cervids are still hunted, while large bovids (Bos primigenius) and caprids (probably Capra ibex) are seen represented for the first time (Payne 1975,

Capra ibex and Dama dama were the main prey species and comprize 80% of the identified bones (Darlas 2007). The whole carcasses were transported to the cave. Animal

119

ANTIGONE PAPADEA 122). The collection of both marine and terrestrial molluscs as well as small scale fishing is also attested for the first time. There are clear indications that the gathering of edible wild plants such as pistachios, almonds, pears, pulses (lentils and vetch), wild cereals (oats and barley), and legumes completed the food supplies (Hansen 1991). A few human skeletal remains, two shed milk, and a single infant rib fragment were recorded (Cullen 1995). The exploitation of local raw materials with mainly flints for the manufacture of the lithic assemblage (Lithic phases IV, V, VI) did not change (Perlès 1987). The presence of Melian obsidian is a paradox. Backed bladeletes are well represented although their percentage and types vary from one lithic phase to another. Other types of tools such as La Mouillah points (Lithic phase IV) and geometric microliths (Lithic phases V and VI) appear. The microburin technique was recorded for the first time in this assemblage and was either used for the shaping of pointed backed bladelets (Lithic phase IV) or for the production of true geometrics (Lithic phase V). A better representation of the “transformations tools” (notches, denticulates, endscrapers) is gradually observed, and also recorded are rare bone tools, grinding implements, and possible ornaments (Perlès 1999, 314).

et al. 2008). The new data from the Theopetra Cave proposed by the thermoluminescence age estimates have affected the analysis of lithic assemblages. However, the characteristics of the stone industry in Lithic phase 1 suggest that human groups from a relatively long distance sporadically visited the cave and produced a specialized tool kit (Panagopoulou 2006, 141). On the contrary, the analysis of Lithic phase 2 reflects a denser use of the caves (Panagopoulou 2006, 141). In general, density estimates of the lithic pieces in the Theopetra Cave (ca. 100 lithics per m³) are extremely low compared to the other Middle Palaeolithic sites (Panagopoulou et al. 2004, 342; Panagopoulou 2006, 253). The completion of research in the new Middle Palaeolithic open-air site of Lake Plastiras in Thessaly might give answers concerning not only its relations to the Theopetra Cave but also in relation to the regional settlement system which includes caves and open-air sites, probably used by the same groups (Apostolikas and Kyparissi-Apostolika 2008). According to Dr. Katerina Trantalidou (Trantalidou 1996), the small number of lithic implements as well as the features of the faunal and lithic assemblages indicates that the Maara Cave (Cave of Aggitis) is related to hunting activities (a killing site).

Discussion

In Upper Palaeolithic Epirus more information is available concerning settlement patterns and cave use. The palaeogeographic reconstruction of the region and the faunal data documented a close association between Upper Palaeolithic site distribution and mobility patterns of animals. This involves the summer grazing areas of the Epirus hinterland and the winter grazing areas into coastal lowlands (Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997; Gamble 1997). It was also argued that the selection of the Upper Palaeolithic caves and rockshelters for human occupation was based on the exploitation of large animals as well as on local topographic features (Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997, 609).

The only rockshelters and caves so far excavated that yielded Middle Palaeolithic layers are Asprochaliko Rockshelter, Theopetra Cave, Lakonis Cave 1, Kalamakia Cave, Kleisoura Cave 1, and Maara Cave (Cave of Aggitis). Information concerning the use of each site is not equally available. Although Asprochaliko Rockshelter is characterized by high densities of lithic debris, exact density estimates are not available (Panagopoulou et al. 2004, 342). Moreover, it is not possible to estimate if Middle Palaeolithic strategies of local landscape use differed from latter ones (Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997, 602).

The Asprochaliko Rockshelter was the ideal site for the control and the capture of animals, especially deer, with the highest overall potential of its land use in late winter, spring, and early summer periods. It does not seem likely that considerable human groups used the cave for longer periods at a time (Bailey 1997b, 668).

The Lakonis Cave 1 is characterized as a generalized multiple activity site with evidence of substantial episodes of occupation and the cumulative effect of repeated visits during different seasons, as it provided access to a variety of habitats and resources (Panagopoulou et al. 2004, 343). This consideration is supported by the high density of archaeological material, the lack of microvertebrates accumulated by non-human agency and the broad variety of in situ activities such as core reduction, tool maintenance and processing of animals.

The Klithi Rockshelter was characterized as a highly specialized site on caprine hunting and was used by a small group of people for regular and repeated annual visits that lasted for one to two months at a time. This hypothesis is mainly based on faunal data and palaeogeographical information (Bailey 1997b, 658-660; Gamble 1997, 237240; Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997, 605-608). However, in terms of lithic technological specialization, it appeared to be a more generalized site (Elefanti 2003, 121122). It was also proposed that the Klithi Rockshelter was rather an attractive stopover used by tethered foragers that moved along the Vikos Gorge (Elefanti 2003, 121122).

In the Kalamakia Cave, occupational surfaces from unit IV correspond mainly to halts of short duration although stays of longer duration have been documented (Darlas 2007). The use of the Kleisoura Cave 1 is intense as habitation features, the density of the faunal remains and lithic assemblages reveal (Sitlivy et al. 2008, 39). With the exception of the initial stages of the reduction sequences, core reduction, tool production and use were attested (Sitlivy

120

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS The features of the lithic assemblage and the spatial characteristics of stratum 9 reflect the sporadic use of the Kastritsa Cave in the form of short visits, while from stratum 7 the use is denser (Adam 1997, 494-496; Galanidou 1997c, 115-116). Especially stratum 5 is characterized as “the first extensive occupation of the site” (Galanidou 1997c, 118). According to the spatial analysis of strata 5 and 9, the entrance of the cave was the focus of human activities. Moreover, the documentation of postholes in layer 12 (stratum 5) enclosing three open hearths and two large stones suggest that the use of this structure was related to a specialized domestic activity such as smoking meat (Galanidou 1997c, 105). The identification of postholes also implies that the human occupants of the Kastritsa Cave used the site for more than one night (Galanidou 1997c, 104-105; 2000, 3-5). In general, this cave was characterized as a generalized site (Bailey 1997b, 668; Elefanti 2003, 118-119; Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997, 614), with access in a wide variety of resources (Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997, 602-605). It was probably used longer during summer (Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997, 603) by larger groups of humans in relation to the Klithi Rockshelter (Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997, 612; according to the new accelerator mass spectrometry dates from the Kastritsa Cave there is a slight possibility of overlapping between the Klithi Cave and stratum 1 of the Kastritsa Cave, see Kotjabopoulou and Adam 2004, 38).

In Peloponnese, in Upper Paleolithic Kleisoura Cave 1 the variety of habitations features, artifacts, faunal assemblages and on site activities suggest that the site was a kind of residential base during most of Upper Paleolithic occupations although the duration of occupation may have varied through time (Stiner et al. 2010, 317-318; Starkovich et al. 2010, 109). The most intense use of the cave was recorded during the formation of Aurignacian layers IV-III e-g as the many clay-lined and unlined hearths and a number of lens, pits and other features prove. The Epipaleolithic occupation is characterized as ephemeral. Some conclusions may be conducted about the seasons during which the cave was occupied. The presence of fetal or neonate remains among the ungulate species, probably belonged to unborn animals, except in layers III and II, indicate that the site was used during the late spring (April) or early summer (Starkovich et al. 2010, 127). Deer antler may suggest that occupation of the site took place from late summer through spring but this is not quite certain. The possible occupation of the site from spring until early autumn is also supported by the phytolith evidence from layers IIIg and to a lesser degree in IIIe which imply the existence of grass flowers. The concentration of hearths and large volumes of wood ash implies the use of the site during the cool months of the year. The presence of hearth complex in unit Ia, the high density of the archaeological material and the on site activities suggest that the type of occupation didn’t change in Lakonis Cave 1, compared to Middle Paleolithic use of the site (Panagopoulou et al. 2004).

However, the faunal data do not exclude the use of the cave from early summer and into autumn (Kotjabopoulou 2001, 88). The application of a non destructive radiological method on two partial semi mandibles of red deer estimate the season of death from late spring/early summer to autumn/late autumn (Kotjabopoulou and Kaftantzis 2008).

In the Mani Peninsula the Upper Paleolithic faunal assemblages of Kolominitsa and Skoini 4 caves suggest a more systematic and intense use of the sites (Darlas and Psathi 2008). On the contrary the archaeological data from Tripsana and Melitzia indicate that the occupation was less frequent and with short duration.

Boila Rockshelter, on the other hand, was visited sporadically (Kotjabopoulou, Panagopoulou and Adam 1999, 198, 208; Kotjabopoulou 2001, 128), but nevertheless its location at the mouth of the Voidomatis Gorge facing the Konitsa Plain favored the exploitation of diverse animal resources (Kotjabopoulou 2001, 128). The faunal remains suggest that this rockshelter was not visited during the cold months of the year (Kotjabopoulou 2001, 128). The Megalakkos Rockshelter was used by a small group of hunters. The differentiation between the lithic assemblages of units 4 and 6 proposes that in the first case hunters from outside the local area used the site as a night camp, while in the second local occupants visited it (Sinclair 1997, 424; 1999, 195). The relationship with the contemporaneous Klithi Rockshelter is still an open issue. The people living in the Grava Rockshelter in Corfu were probably in control of the coastal lowland of western Epirus, which was extended when the sea level was depressed (Sturdy, Webley and Bailey 1997, 609). In Attika, the continuation of the excavations will reveal further information concerning the use of the cave at the end of the Pleistocene/Early Holocene and probably even earlier.

During the first part of the Upper Palaeolithic occupation, the Franchthi Cave was probably used infrequently by small groups of hunters (Elefanti 2003, 123-124). During the second part of the Upper Palaeolithic occupation and after the climatic amelioration, the cave was then used more frequently and probably all year round (Elefanti 2003, 123-124). The anthropological findings indicate that whole families visited the cave. The small number of lithic artifacts, the absence of the complete reduction sequence, and the presence of tools made on non local raw materials suggest that the Upper Paleolithic Theopetra Cave was not a main residential site but was used: “as a complimentary location to open-air site/s or to other – not yet located - cave sites” (Adam 2006, 169). The use of Greek Palaeolithic caves and rockshelters remains an open issue as several research projects are still in progress and final reports are still pending. Although many questions have been answered concerning the den-

121

ANTIGONE PAPADEA sity of use and the types of activities performed in them, other problems are still waiting for a solution. The relationship between caves and open-air sites is a central query in exploring the regional pattern of land use and the

Palaeolithic settlement patterns in Greece. It is also possible that future research projects will reveal further information concerning the variety of sites used by human groups.

122

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS Bailey, G.N. 1997a. “Klithi Excavations: Aims and Methods,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol. 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 43-60.

Bibliography Adam, E. 1989. A Technological and Typological Analysis of Upper Palaeolithic Stone Industries of Epirus, Northwestern Greece, (BAR 512), Oxford. ———. 1997. “To Know and to Have: Raw Material Availability and Upper Palaeoltihic Stone Assemblages Structure in Epirus,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 481-496.

———. 1997b. “Klithi: A Synthesis,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol. 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 655-677. ———. 1999. “The Palaeolithic Archaeology and Palaeogeography of Epirus with Particular Reference to the Investigations of the Klithi Rockshelter,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 159-169.

———. 1998. “Upper Palaeolithic Technocomplexes in Greece: Diachronic Change and Regional Variability,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, (Section 6, Vol. 2), (Forli, 8-14 September 1996, A.B.A.C.O.), Forli pp. 485494. ———. 1999a. “The Upper Palaeolithic Stone Industries of Epirus in Their Regional Setting,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 137-147.

Bailey, G.N., P.L. Carter, C.S. Gamble, and H.P. Higgs. 1983a. “Asprochaliko and Kastritsa: Further Investigations of Palaeolithic Settlement and Economy in Epirus (North-west Greece),” PPS 49, pp. 15-42. ———. 1983b. “Epirus Revisited: Seasonality and Intersite Variation in the Upper Palaeolithic of North-west Greece,” in Hunter-gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 64-78.

———. 1999b. “Preliminary Presentation of the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Stone Industries of Theopetra Cave, Western Thessaly,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 266-270.

Bailey, G.N., P.L. Carter, C.S. Gamble, H.P. Higgs, and C. Roubet. 1984. “Palaeolithic Investigations in Epirus: The Results of the First Season’s Excavation at Klithi 1983,” BSA 79, pp. 7-22.

———. 2006. “The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Stone Assemblages of Theopetra Cave and Their Contribution to an Assessment of Site Use during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene,” in Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998, (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), (2nd ed.), N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., Athens, pp. 163-172.

Bailey, G.N., C.S. Gamble, H.P. Higgs, C. Roubet, D.A. Sturdy, and D.P. Webley. 1986. “Palaeolithic Investigations at Klithi: Preliminary Results of the 1984-1985 Field Seasons,” BSA 81, pp. 7-35. Bailey, G.N., V. Papaconstantinou and D.A. Sturdy. 1992. “Asprochaliko and Kokkinopilos: TL Dating and Reinterpretation of Middle Palaeolithic Sites in Epirus, North-west Greece,” CAJ 2, pp. 136-144.

Adam, E. and Kotjabopoulou, E. 1997. “The Organic Artifacts from Klithi,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 245-259.

Bailey, G.N. and J. Woodward. 1997. “The Klithi Deposits: Sedimentology, Stratigraphy and Chronology,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece, (Vol 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 61-94.

Albert R. M. 2010. “Hearths and Plant Uses during the Upper Palaeolithic Period at Kleisoura Cave 1 (Greece): The Results from Phytolith Analyses,” Eurasian Prehistory 7(2), pp. 71-85.

Bocheński, Z., M. and T. Tomek. 2010. “The Birds of Kleisoura Cave 1: A Window into the Upper Palaeolithic Greece,” Eurasian Prehistory 7 (2), pp. 91-106.

Apostolikas, O. and N. Kyparissi-Apostolika. 2008. “Middle Palaeolithic Exploitation of the Lake Plastiras Plateau, Western Thessaly-Greece,” in The Palaeolithic of the Balkans, (Proceedings of the 15 UISPP/IUPPS Congress, 4-9 September 2006, Lisbon), A. Darlas and D. Mihailović, eds., (BAR-IS 1819), Oxford, pp. 33-37.

Darlas, A. 1994. “Le Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen de Grèce,” L’Anthropologie 98, pp. 305-328. ———. 2002. “Η ανασκαφή του Παλαιολιθικού Σπηλαίου Καλαμάκια: Τα Νεώτερα Δεδομένα,” in

123

ANTIGONE PAPADEA Πρακτικά Α΄ Τοπικού Συνεδρίου Λακωνικών Σπουδών, (Εταιρεία Λακωνικών Σπουδών), Αthens, pp. 179-209

and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 275-304.

———. 2007. “Le Moustérien de Grèce à la Lumière des Récentes Recherches,” L’Anthropologie 111, pp. 346-66.

———. 1997b. “Lithic Reffiting and Site Structure at Kastritsa,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 497-520.

Darlas, A. and H. de Lumley. 1999. “Palaeolithic Research in Kalamakia Cave, Areopolis, Peloponnese,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 293-302.

———. 1997c. Home is Where the Hearth Is: The Spatial Organisation of the Upper Palaeolithic Rockshelter Occupations at Klithi and Kastritsa in Northwest Greece, (BAR-IS 687), Oxford.

———. 2004. “La Grotte de Kalamakia (Aréopolis, Grèce). Sa Contribution à la Connaissance du Paléolithique Moyen de Grèce,” in 14e Congrès UISPP, (Liège, 2-8 Septembre 2001. Actes de la 5e Section: Le Paléolithique Moyen), Le Secrétariat du Congrés, ed., (BAR-IS 1239), Oxford, pp. 225-233.

———. 2000. “Biographies of the Lithic Artifacts from Upper Palaeolithic Kastritsa,” BSA 95, pp. 1-19. Galanidou, N., P.C. Tzedakis, I.T. Lawson, and M.R. Frogley. 2000. “A Revised Chronological and Palaeoenvironmental Framework for the Kastritsa Rockshelter, Northwest Greece,” Antiquity 74, pp. 349-355.

Darlas, A., P. Karkanas, O. Palli, and Α. Papadea. 2006. “Παλαιολιθικές Έρευνες στη Νοτιοδυτική Κέρκυρα, AAA 39 [2007], pp. 11-30.

Gamble, C. 1997. “The Animal Bones from Klithi,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 207-244.

Darlas, A. and E. Psathi 2008. ‘‘Le Paléolithique Supérieur dans la Péninsule du Mani (Péloponnèse, Grèce),” in The Palaeolithic of the Balkans, (Proceedings of the 15 UISPP/IUPPS Congress, session C33, Lisbon 49 September 2006, Vol. 17), A. Darlas and D. Mihailović, eds., (BAR-IS 1819), Oxford, pp. 51-59.

Gowlett, J.A.J. and P. Carter. 1997. “The Basal Mousterian of Asprochaliko Rockshelter, Louros Valley,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 441-457.

Elefanti, P. 2003. Hunter-gatherer Specialised Subsistence Strategies in Greece during the Upper Palaeolithic from the Perspective of Lithic Technology, (BAR-IS 1130), Oxford.

Gowlett, J.A.J., R. Hedges and R. Housley. 1997. “Klithi: The AMS Radiocarbon Dating Programme for the Site and Its Environs,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 27-40.

Elefanti, P., E. Panagopoulou and P. Karkanas, 2007. “The Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Southern Balkans: The Evidence from the Lakonis I Cave, Greece,” Eurasian Prehistory 5(2), pp. 77-87. Facorellis, Y. and Y. Maniatis. 2006. “Evidence for 50,000 Years of Human Activity in the Cave of Theopetra by 14C”, in Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998, (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), 2nd ed., N. Kyparissi-Apostolika ed., Athens, pp. 53-68.

Hansen, J.M. 1991. The Paleoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave, (Franchthi Fascile 7), Bloomington and Indiannapolis. Harvati, K., E. Panagopoulou and P. Karkanas. 2003. “First Neanderthal Remains from Greece: The Evidence from Lakonis,” JHE 45, pp. 465-473.

Facorellis, Y., N. Kyparissi-Apostolika and Y. Maniatis. 2001. “The Cave of Theopetra, Kalambaka: Radiocarbon Evidence for 50,000 Years of Human Presence,” Radiocarbon 43, pp. 1029-1049. Farrand, W.R. 1999. Depositional History of Franchthi Cave: Sediments, Stratigraphy and Chronology, (Franchthi Fascile 12), Bloominton and Indiannapolis.

Harvati, K., E. Panagopoulou, P. Karkanas, A. Athanassiou, and S.P. Frost. 2008. “Preliminary Results of the Aliakmon Palaeolithic/Palaeoanthropological Survey, Greece, 2004-2005,” in The Palaeolithic of the Balkans, (Proceedings of the 15 UISPP/IUPPS Congress, 4-9 September 2006, Lisbon), A. Darlas and D. Mihailovic, eds., (BAR-IS 1819), Oxford, pp. 15-20.

Galanidou, N. 1997a. “The Spatial Organization of Klithi,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 1), Excavation

Hennig, G.J., W. Herr, E. Weber, and N.I. Xirotiris. 1981. “ESR-dating of the Fossil Hominid Cranium from the Petralona Cave, Greece,” Nature 292, pp. 533-536.

124

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS Higgs, E.S. and C. Vita-Finzi. 1966. “The Climate, Environment and Industries of Stone Age Greece: Part II,” PPS 32, pp. 1-29.

(National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens, 28-31 May 2003), Y. Facorellis, N. Zacharias and K. Polikreti, eds., (BAR-IS 1746), Oxford, pp. 195-203.

Higgs, E. S., C. Vita-Finzi, D.R. Harris, and A.E. Fagg. 1967. “The Climate, Environment and Industries of Stone Age Greece: Part III,” PPS 33, pp. 1-29.

Kotjabopoulou, E., E. Panagopoulou and E. Adam. 1997. “The Boila Rockshelter: A Preliminary Report,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 427-437.

Huxtable, J., J.A.J. Gowlett, G.N. Bailey, P.L. Carter, H.P. Higgs, and E. Papaconstantinou. 1992. “Thermoluminescence Dates and a New Analysis of the Early Mousterian from Asprochaliko, Greece,” CurrAnthr 33, pp. 109-114.

———. 1999. “The Boila Rockshelter: Further Evidence of Human Activity in the Voidomatis Gorge,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 197-210.

Jacobsen, T. and W.R. Farrand. 1987. Franchthi Cave and Paralia: Maps, Plans, and Sections, (Franchthi Fascile 1), Bloomington and Indiannapolis. Kaczanowska, M., J. K., Kozlowski and K. Sobczyk. 2010 “Upper Palaeolithic Human Occupations and Material Culture at Kleisoura Cave 1,” Eurasian Prehistory 7(2), pp. 133-285.

Koumouzelis, M., J.K. Kozlowski, M. Nowak, K. Sobczyk, M. Kaczanowska, M. Pawlikowski, and A. Pazdur. 1996. “Prehistoric Settlement in the Kleisoura Gorge, Argolid, Greece (Excavations 1993, 1994),” Préhistoire Européenne 8, pp. 143-173.

Karkanas, P, N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, O. Bar-Yosef, and S. Weiner. 1999. “Mineral Assemblages in Theopetra, Greece: A Framework for Understanding Diagenesis in a Prehistoric Cave,” JAS 26, pp. 1171-1180.

Koumouzelis, M., J.K. Kozlowski, C. Escutenaire, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, H. Valladas, N. Tisnerat-Laborde, P. Wojtal, and B. Ginter. 2001a. “La Fin du Paléolithique Moyen et le Début du Paléolithique Supérieur en Grèce: La Séquence de la Grotte 1 de Kleisoura,” L’Anthropologie 105, pp. 469-504.

Karkanas, P., M. Koumouzelis, J.K. Kozlowski, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, F. Berna, and S. Weiner. 2004. “The Earliest Evidence for Clay Hearths: Aurignacian Features in Kleisoura Cave 1, Southern Greece,” Antiquity 78, pp. 513-525.

Koumouzelis, M., B. Ginter, J.K. Kozlowski, M. Pawlikowski, O. Bar-Yosef, R.M. Albert, M. Litynska-Zajac, E. Stworzewicz, P. Wojtal, G. Lipecki, T. Tomek, Z.M. Bochenski, and Pazdur A. 2001b. “The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: The Excavations in Kleisoura Cave,” JAS 28, pp. 515-539.

Karkanas, P and S. Weiner. 2006. “Lithostratigraphy and Diagenesis of Theopetra Cave Deposits, Kalambaka,” in Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998, (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), 2nd ed., N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., Athens, pp. 37-52.

Kourtessi-Philippakis, G. 1986. Le Paléolithique de la Grèce Continentale. État de la Question et Perspectives de Recherche, Paris.

Karkanas, P. 2010. “Geology, Stratigraphy, and Site Formation Processes of the Upper Palaeolithic and later sequence in Kleisoura Cave 1,” Eurasian Prehistory 7 (2), pp. 15-36.

Kuhn, S.L., J. Pigati, P. Karkanas, M. Koumouzelis, J. K. Kozlowski, M. Ntinou, and M. C. Stiner. 2010. “Radiocarbon Dating Results for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kleisoura Cave 1,” Eurasian Prehistory 7 (2), pp. 37-46.

Kotjabopoulou, E. 2001. Patterned Fragments and Fragments of Patterns: Upper Palaeolithic Rockshelter Faunas from Epirus, Northwestern Greece, Ph.D diss., University of Cambridge.

Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. 1999. “The Palaeolithic Deposits of Theopetra Cave in Thessaly, Greece,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 232-239.

Kotjabopoulou, E. and E. Adam. 2004. “People, Mobility and Ornament in Upper Palaeolithic Epirus, NW Greece,” in La Spiritualité (Actes du Colloque International de Liège, 10-12 Décembre 2003), M. Otte, ed., (ERAUL 106), Liège, pp. 37-53.

Kyparissi-Apostlika, N., ed. 2006. Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998, (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), (2nd ed.), Athens.

Kotjabopoulou, E. and C.N. Kaftantzis. 2008. “Seasonality and Radiology: A Pilot Application on Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus) Dentaries from the Upper Palaeolithic Cave of Kastritsa, NW Greece,” in Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry,

125

ANTIGONE PAPADEA Lynkovanlis, S. 2006. Μορφο-τεχνολογική Προσέγγιση της Μουστέριας Λιθοτεχνίας από τον Παραπόταμο, M.A. diss. University of Crete, Rethymnon.

Papaconstantinou, E. 1988. Micromoustérien. Les Idées et les Pierres. Le Micromoustérien d’Asprochaliko (Grèce) et le Problème des Industries Microlithique du Moustérien, Ph.D diss., University of Paris 10, Nanterre.

Marinos, G., P. Giannouli and A. Sotiriadi. 1965. “Παλαιοανθρωπολογικαί Έρευναι εις το Σπήλαιον Πετραλώνων Χαλκιδικής,” Εpistemonike Εpeterida tes Physikomathematikes Sxoles tou Panepistemiou Thessalonikes 9, pp. 149-204.

Papaconstantinou, E. and D. Vassilopoulou. 1997. “The Middle Palaeolithic Industries of Epirus,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol. 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 459-480.

Manolis, S., L. Aiello, R. Henessy, and N. KyparissiApostolika. 2006. “The Middle Palaeolithic Footprint from Theopetra Cave (Thessaly, Greece),” in Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 19871998, (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), (2nd ed.), N. KyparissiApostolika, ed., Athens, pp. 81-94.

Papagianni, D. 2000. Middle Palaeolithic Occupation and Technology in Northwestern Greece. The Evidence from Open-air Sites, (BAR-IS 882), Oxford. Pawlikowski, M., M. Koumouzelis, B. Ginter, and J.K. Kozlowski. 2000. “Emerging Ceramic Technology in Structured Aurignacian Hearths at Kleisoura Cave 1 in Greece,” Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia 4, pp. 19-29.

Mavridis, F. and L. Kormazopoulou. 2007-2008. “Ανώνυμο Σπήλαιο Σχιστού Κερατσινίου. Η Ανασκαφή των ετών 2006-2007. Τα Πρώτα Στοιχεία της Έρευνας”, AAA 40-41 [2009], pp. 13-23.

Payne, S. 1975. “Faunal Change at Franchthi Cave from 20,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C.,” in Archaeological studies, E. Clason, ed., The Hague, pp. 120-131.

Moss, E.H. 1997. “Lithic Use-wear Analysis,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 193205.

Perlès, C. 1987. Les Industries Lithiques Taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). Tome I: Présentation Générale et Industries Paléolithiques, (Franchthi Fascile 3), Bloomington, Indiannapolis.

Palli, O. 2006. “Η Εποχή του Λίθου στη Θεσπρωτία,” Epeirotika Hronika 40, pp. 27-40.

———. 1999. “Long-term Perspectives on the Occupation of the Franchthi Cave: Continuity and Discontinuity,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 311-318.

Palli, O. and A. Papadea. 2002. “Les Νouveaux Sites Paléolithiques en Thesprôtie,” in L’Illyrie Méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité-IV, (Actes du 4e Colloque International de Grenoble, 10-12 Octobre 2002), P. Cabanes and J.L. Lamboley, eds., Paris, pp. 17-22. Panagopoulou, E. 1999. “The Theopetra Middle Palaeolithic Assemblages: Their Relevance to the Middle Palaeolithic of Greece and Adjacent Areas,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 252-265.

Poulianos, A.N. 1982. “Το Σπήλαιο του Αρχανθρώπου των Πετραλώνων,” (Βιβλιοθήκη της Ανθρωπολογικής Εταιρείας Ελλάδας 3), Athens. Richards, M., K. Harvati, V. Grimes, C. Smith, T. Smith, J.-J. Hublin, P. Karkanas, and P. Panagopoulou. 2008. “Strontium Isotope Evidence of Neanderthal Mobility at the Site of Lakonis, Greece Using Laser-ablation PIMMS,” JAS 35(5), pp. 1251-1256.

———. 2006. “The Middle Palaeolithic Assemblages of Theopetra Cave: Technological Evolution in the Upper Pleistocene,” in Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998, (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), (2nd ed.), N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., Athens, pp. 139162.

Roubet, C. 1997a. “The Lithic Domain at Klithi: Technology of Production and the Chaîne Opératoire,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 125-153.

Panagopoulou, E., P. Karkanas, G. Tsartsidou, E. Kotjabopoulou, K. Harvati, and M. Ntinou. 2004. “Late Pleistocene Archaeological and Fossil Human Evidence from Lakonis Cave, Southern Greece,” JFA 29, pp. 323349.

———. 1997b. “The Backed Pieces at Klithi, 9.1. Analysis of the 4000 Series and the Techniques of Segmentation,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol. 1), Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 155-180.

126

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS ———. 1999. “Expressions of an Upper Palaeolithic Management of Lithic Resources at Klithi (Greece),” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 170-178.

Upper Paleolithic of Southern Greece in Cultural and Ecological Context,” Eurasian Prehistory 7 (2), pp. 309321. Sturdy, D.A., D.P. Webley and G.N. Bailey. 1997. “The Palaeolithic Geography of Epirus,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 587-393.

Runnels, C.N. 1995. “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the Advent of the Neolithic,” AJA 99, pp. 699-728.

Stravopodi, E., S. Manolis and N. Kyparissi-Apostolika. 1999. “Palaeoanthropological Findings from Theopetra Cave in Thessaly: A Preliminary Report,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 271-281.

Runnels, C.N., E. Karimali and B. Cullen. 2003. “Early Upper Palaeolithic Spilaion: An Artifact-rich Surface Site,” in Landscape Archaeology in Southern Epirus, Greece I. J. Wiseman and K. Zachos, eds., (Hesperia Suppl. 32), pp. 135-156. Sinclair, A. 1997. “Lithic and Faunal Assemblages from Megalakkos: Some Problems in the Interpretation of Small Sites,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 415-426.

Stravopodi, E. and S. Manolis. 2006. “The Bioarchaeological Profile of the Anthropological Finds of Theopetra Cave: A Pilot Study in Greek Peninsula,” in Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998, (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), (2nd ed.), N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., Athens, pp. 95-108.

———. 1999. “Technological Decision Making and the Influence of Specialised Activities: The Case of Megalakkos (Epirus Greece),” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, (Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 188-196.

Stringer, C.B., C.F. Howell and J.K. Melentis. 1979. “The Significance of the Fossil Hominid Skull from Petralona, Greece,” JAS 6, pp. 235-253. Trantalidou, K. 1996. “Πηγές του Αγγίτη: Θέση Διέλευσης Παλαιολιθικών Κυνηγών-Συλλεκτών στη Γη της Σημερινής Ανατολικής Μακεδονίας,” Αrchaeologia kai Techne 60, pp. 19-23.

Sitlivy, V., K. Sobczyk, P. Karkanas, and M. Koumouzelis. 2008. “Middle Palaeolithic Industries of Kleisoura Cave, Greece,” in The Palaeolithic of the Balkans, (Proceedings of the 15 UISPP/IUPPS Congress, 4-9 September 2006, Lisbon), A. Darlas and D. Mihailović, eds., (BAR-IS 1819), Oxford, pp. 39-49.

Trantalidou, K. and A. Darlas. 1992. “Έρευνες στα Σπήλαια του Νομού Δράμας,” To Archaeologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai te Thrake 6 [1995], Thessaloniki, pp. 587603.

Sordinas, A. 1969. “Investigations of the Prehistory of Corfu during 1964-1966,” BalkSt 19, pp. 393-424.

Valladas, H., N. Mercier, L. Froget, J.-L. Joron, J.-L. Reyss, P. Karkanas, E. Panagopoulou, and N. KyparissiApostolika. 2007. “TL-age Estimates for the Middle Palaeolithic Layers at Theopetra Cave (Greece),” Quaternary Geochronology 2, pp. 303-308.

Starkovich, B. M. And M., C. Stiner. 2010. “Upper Palaeolithic Animal Exploitation at Kleisoura Cave 1 in Southern Greece: Dietary Trends and mammal Taphonomy,” Eurasian Prehistory 7(2), pp. 107-132. Stiner, M. C. 2010. “Shell Ornaments from the Upper Paleolithic through Mesolithic Layers of Kleisoura Cave 1 by Prosymna (Peloponese, Greece),” Eurasian Prehistory 7(2), pp. 287-308.

Woodward, J. 1997. “Late Pleistocene Rockshelter Sedimentation at Megalakkos,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol 2), Klithi in Its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 377-393.

Stiner, M., C., J. K. Kozlowski, S. L. Kuhn, P. Karkanas, and M. Koumouzelis. 2010. “Kleisoura Cave 1 and the

127

ANTIGONE PAPADEA

Itylo caves

Figure 5.1 .Map of Greece showing the Palaeolithic caves mentioned in the text.

128

THE USE OF PALAEOLITHIC CAVES AND ROCKSHELTERS IN GREECE: A SYNOPSIS

Figure 5.2. Theopetra Cave from the W-NW. General view (Courtesy of Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika).

Figure 5.3. Anonymous Cave Schisto, Keratsini from W. (Photo by F. Mavridis).

129

FRANK FALKENSTEIN

6

Methodology

The Early Holocene Occupation Of Caves In The Balkans

This contribution is dealing with the socioeconomic function of caves in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods of the Balkan area in its broader sense. In approaching this topic, it would be very helpful to compare the archaeological material of caves with that of open-air settlements in order to show their similarities and differences.

Frank Falkenstein Introduction

From the methodical point of view, a wide range of natural, topographical, and archaeological aspects can be analyzed, such as the wider natural settings of cave sites, access to special environments, local topography as well as sedimentary processes within the caves, various archaeological features and finds coming from settlement activity, burials, or ritual acts.

The Balkan called landscape between the Alps and the Black Sea coast is stretching across the countries Bulgaria, Albania and the new states of former Yugoslavia. A large part of this region is covered with tertiary folded mountains, which are disrupted and margined by fluvial basins. The mountain ranges predominantly consisting of limestone from the Jurassic and Cretaceous period compose a transition zone between the Mediterranean and a sub continental climate. Notably the southern parts of the mountainous region, situated in the Mediterranean clime, have created karst formations with numberless caves, which most frequently occur in the Dinarian and Istrian karst alongside the Adriatic Sea. That is the reason why in these areas by far most of the caves have been investigated by archaeologists, whereas in the continental areas of the western Balkan and in Bulgaria only a couple of cave stations have been excavated. But the state of research is likewise dissatisfying because the excavations of cave sites are often not or insufficient published. The Mesolithic period representing the most ancient culture of man in the Holocene is sparsely found within the Balkan area. The bigger concentration of Mesolithic sites can be observed along the Adriatic coast, where settlements are frequently encountered in caves. This general pattern of occupation behavior continued up to the Neolithic period. The Early Neolithic Impresso culture is predominantly known from cave stations. Considerable stratigraphies revealing several cultural layers demonstrate sequences of long and dense occupations. Particularly caves close to the shore of the Adriatic Sea have been occupied intensively till the Late Neolithic Hvar culture. In contrast, caves in the inner Balkan area played a minor role as dwellings. The Early Neolithic Starčevo culture of the central Balkan area is nearly exclusive represented by open-land settlements. And for the Early Neolithic of Bulgaria multilayer settlements situated in lowlands can be regarded as the characteristic occupation pattern. In the developed Copper Age the importance of caves as permanent settlements decreased as well in the Dinarian and Istrian zones. The frequent but short time occupation of caves in the mountain area seems to be connected with transhumant livestock husbandry. In the Bronze and Iron Ages occupation activities in caves must be regarded as exceptional. Different from the Alpine area and the low mountain ranges of central Europe, the Balkan area seems to lack caves, which can be identified as special places for sacrifice and burial. Likewise, the absence of a developed rock art in caves and abris is notable. Numerous rock paintings in the Magura Cave in Bulgaria seem to represent a long term but singular local tradition of Metal Ages.

Unfortunately, the conditions for such investigations are far from optimal. The caves of our survey area are in the majority of cases prospected by thin layers - hardly approving a laminar observation of features. The archaeological finds are often selectively recorded, and topographic information about the surroundings of caves is scarce. The efforts of the excavators generally aim at the cultural classification of layers within the stratigraphies of caves and less at reconstructing their wider socioeconomic use and function. An aggravating circumstance is the fact that open-air sites are poorly preserved in the mountainous karst landscape and therefore the original settlement pattern is at best partial reconstructible. Albeit the subsequent inquest comprizes 44 cave sites with traces of Mesolithic or Neolithic occupation, only a handful intensely investigated sites are yielding results of the required quality. The well known Early Holocene cave sites between the eastern fringe of the Alps and the Black Sea are very unequally dispersed over different mountainous zones of the Balkan area. Just beyond the area of our consideration lies the Trieste karst in northeast Italy, where groundbreaking investigations of cave archaeology have been undertaken by Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj and her colleagues (see Kokelje 2002). A focus lies on the karst landscapes of Dalmatia and Istria in Croatia (Fig. 6.1). Particularly on the east Adriatic Islands, along the cliffy coasts, and in the coastal hinterland numerous caves have been investigated [1-25] (all numbers in square brackets refer to the catalogue of cave sites, see below). A smaller number of cave sites, and some of them of great importance, is situated in the low mountain range of Herzegovina [26-9] and Montenegro [30-4]. Likewise, some Neolithic cave sites are located in the mountainous zone of Albania [35-40]. From Bulgaria very few caves with Neolithic occupation [41-4] are known and they were barely investigated in recent times. From other regions of the Balkan area, which are likewise rich of caves, we miss evidence of a systematic occupation of caves in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.

130

THE EARLY HOLOCENE OCCUPATION OF CAVES IN THE BALKANS chronological entity. According to the radiocarbon dates the absolute chronology of the culture ranges from ca. 6100 to 5500 B.C. (Müller 1994, 182-185, fig. 76).

East Adriatic Zone The east Adriatic zone is bordered by the Adriatic Sea in the west and by the ridges of the Dinarids in the east, which frame the watershed to the Danube area (Fig. 6.1). The Dinarids form a range of fold mountains comprising of limestones and dolomites with distinctive karst formations. While the karst mountains are falling steeply into the sea in southern Dalmatia, central and northern Dalmatia, and the Peninsula of Istria are featuring wide limestone plateaus and coastal plains of alluvial origin. Countless rocky islands are stretching offshore the east Adriatic coast. The karst islands and the coastal mountain range exhibit caves, rockshelters, and dolines delivering traces of occupation from the Palaeolithic up to the historical periods.

The transition to the Middle Neolithic in the east Adriatic zone took place about the middle of the 6th millennium B.C. and is marked by the appearance of the Danilo culture. This culture evolved from the Impresso tradition, but shows some new cultural attributes (Batović 1979, 525-574, map 8; Müller 1994, 187-195). As the pottery shapes reveal, an uninterrupted development characterized the transition to the Late Neolithic Hvar culture, which could have extended from the late 6th millennium to the first half of the 5th millennium B.C. With the Hvar culture the indigenous genesis of the east Adriatic Neolithic comes to an end (Batović 1979, 633).

Chronology

Topography And Geography

The Mesolithic of the Balkan and Adriatic areas emerged from the younger Palaeolithic cultural substrate as hunter gatherer groups adapting to the changed Post-Glacial environment.

The comparatively good state of research in the east Adriatic area permits a quantitative comparison of caves and open-air sites. Mirko Malez counted 15 Mesolithic sites from which seven (47%) are caves and eight (53%) are open-air sites (Malez 1979, 227-275, 278-279). According to Müller’s catalogue in the Early Neolithic Impresso culture, 32 cave sites (64%) are facing only 18 (36%) open-air settlements (Müller 1994, 310-332, fig. 3). A similar tendency can be emphasized for the Middle Neolithic Danilo culture, which after Šime Batović has been identified in 24 (65%) caves and 13 (35%) open-air stations (Batović 1979, 525). In the Late Neolithic Hvar culture even 37 cave sites (75%) are facing only 12 (25%) open-air settlements (Batović 1979, 576).

Thereby the identification of the Mesolithic remains in most regions of the Balkans is problematical. Most frequently found are sites in the peri-Mediterranean area of the eastern Adria, where they range in Istria, Dalmatia, and Montenegro from the islands to the littoral and up to the hinterland (Malez 1979, 294-295; Müller 1994, fig. 78). Only a few Mesolithic sites could be detected in the inner mountainous zone of the Balkan area (Srejović 1989, fig. 1, 485-490). From the chronological point of view an Early Mesolithic Sauveterrien is distinguished from a Late Mesolithic Castelnovien, characterized by microlithic industries (Müller 1994, 196-197). A concentration of Mesolithic open-air sites extends along the Serbian and Romanian banks of the Danube in the microregion of the Iron Gate (Srejović 1989, 482-485; Boronéant 1996). Unfortunately, this zone is already situated at the periphery of our considerations.

The high proportion of cave sites in the Mesolithic is not a surprise due to the presumed non sedentary life pattern of the hunter gatherer groups. Also, since the Early Holocene, the climate, vegetation, relief in the coastal plains, and the karstic landscapes have experienced considerable changes, and that makes the preservation of temporary Mesolithic camp sites on the present day surface highly problematic (Chapman, Shiel and Batović 1996, 61-62).

Even if there are hardly any radiocarbon dates available for the Early Mesolithic, the Late Mesolithic in the east Adriatic hinterland can be limited by data gained in the Odmut Cave site [33] between approximately 6500 and 5500 B.C. In the first half of the 6th millennium B.C. a broad overlapping between the indigenous Mesolithic culture of Castelnovien and the Early Neolithic Impresso culture can be presumed (Müller 1994, figs. 76, 197).

Astonishingly, at the beginning of the Neolithic the share of cave sites is increasing, and this tendency is still enforcing in the course of the Middle and Late Neolithic development. Finally in the Hvar culture three-quarters of the known sites are situated in caves. In this regard, the Neolithic occupation pattern along the east Adriatic coast represents a special case within the Balkan area.

With the Early Neolithic Impresso culture a farming population appeared for the first time practising crop cultivation, livestock husbandry, and producing pottery. The Impresso culture is mainly spread along the coastal belt of the eastern Adriatic Sea and in its nearby hinterland (Batović 1979, map 7; Müller 1994, fig. 3). In particular Johannes Müller recently devoted a comprehensive study to the material, the chronology, and the economy of the Impresso culture (Müller 1994). Regardless of its inner development the Impresso culture is treated here as a

However it must be stressed that cave sites and flatland settlements show different foci of distribution. In the north Dalmatian coastal plain between the towns of Zadar and Šibenik there are found predominantly and in high density open settlements whereas the middle and south Dalmatian littoral bears nearly exclusively cave sites (Müller 1994, fig. 3). Natural caves are abound in all altitudes in the karstic massifs. For this reason the position of occupied caves

131

FRANK FALKENSTEIN above sea level could yield clues about forms of land use in both the Mesolithic and the Neolithic periods. Cave sites are scattered across different altitudes starting from the sea level up to a height above 800 m, but two aggregations are roughly perceptible (Fig. 6.1). One focus lies on coastal caves with altitudes mostly beneath 100 m and sporadic up to 200 m ASL. The second and larger group of caves spans between 300 and 700 m ASL; here an intended connection to the mountainous subsistence area is obvious.

sea. This cave could have served as an appreciated shelter above all for mobile groups seasonally moving between the coast and the hinterland. By contrast, Vela Spila [21] on the Island of Korčula is located on a hill slope in only 130 m ASL overlooking a natural protected branch of a large bay. In the vicinity are the accessible fertile Vela Luka depression and a silted up lake. The spacious hall cave with originally more than 1100 m2 floor space shows a wide bent arch shaped entrance with a large terrasse like plateau in front (Fig. 6.2). Its particular topography and diverse subsistence areas available in the vicinity made this cave a suitable place for settlement. Therefore it is only consequential that the cave was occupied intensely and over longer time spans in the Mesolithic as well as in Early and Late Neolithic periods.

Even if the data base is small, cave sites of the Mesolithic seem to be situated predominantly in the mountainous zone (Klanjčeva Peć [2], Oporovina Pečina [3], Podosojna Peć [4], Vaganačka Peč [9], Medena Stijena [32], Odmut Cave [33]). Cave settlements in low altitudes above the recent sea level are very exceptional (Vela Spila  [21].) The apparent absence of Mesolithic camp sites in the present day littoral does not surprise, presumably because the main areas of the Mesolithic occupation would have been the coastal plains of the Early Holocene that is now submerged beneath the Adriatic Sea by the rising of the sea level (Chapman et al. 1996, 258).

Another type of sites embodies the Odmut Cave [33] in the mountainous midland of Montenegro (Fig. 6.3). The cave is placed at the bottom of the steep Kulina Hill slope in a convenient position near the junction of Vrbnica and Piva rivers. The 20 m wide and 14 m high entrance presented an inviting rockshelter, which was intensely occupied in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic, and Bronze Age.

On the other hand, similar positions are observable likewise at Neolithic cave sites, though in this period the sea level had nearly reached present day gage. Caves with continuous traces of the Impresso, Danilo, and Hvar culture (Oporovina Pečina [3], Vorganska Peć [5], Golubnjača Pećina [8], Vaganačka Peč [9], Gospodška Pečina [10], Tamnica [12], Gudnja Cave [25], Koronina Cave [31], Odmut Cave [33], Spila Peć [34], Tradanj [13], Markova Špilja [17], Pokrivenik Pećina [20], Vela Spila [21], Žukovica Špilja [22], Jakasova Špilja [23], Rača Pećina [24]) predominantly are found in altitudes of several hundred meters ASL. In addition a group of cave sites in low altitudes is noticeable, and they are mainly situated on the eastern Adriatic Islands and mostly occupied of the Late Neolithic Hvar culture (Tradanj [13], Markova Špilja [17], Pokrivenik Pećina [20], Vela Spila [21], Žukovica Špilja [22], Jakasova Špilja [23], Rača Pećina [24]). Here the connection to the marine environment is, of course, obvious.

These few examples may be enough to point out that the frequency and duration of cave occupation is basically depending on topographic and geographic factors. The preferred occupation were capacious and bright hall caves with wide entrances, lying next to natural routes or road junctions and thereby offering access to diverse economic domains. Otherwise the favorable natural conditions of caves are mostly universal in spite of iterated occupations during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods and by all means different subsistence strategies could be supposed. It can be asserted that in numerous caves the Earliest Holocene occupation began not until the period of Neolithisation. Most of the caves, yielding hints on activity of the Early Neolithic Impresso culture, were also occupied in the subsequent Middle and Late Neolithic. These preferred caves often possess fertile plains or plateaus in their neighborhood that were potentially suitable as pasture or for crop cultivation such as Jamina Sredi [6], Gospodška Pečina [10], Škarin Samograd [14], Vela Spila [21], Gudnja Cave [25], and Zelena Pećina [28].

Another aspect of the cave use is offered by their occupation density, providing clues for the favor of specific locations. The cave sediments, normally several meters thick, reveal important cultural stratigraphies of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in this area. Only a couple of caves delivered frequent settlement residues running from the Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic periods. Among these are Vaganačka Peć [9] in middle Dalmatia, Vela Spila [21] on the Island of Korčula, and Odmut Cave [33] in the mountainous zone of Montenegro.

Furthermore we now have the knowledge of caves exclusively settled by the Early Neolithic Impresso culture, and all the caves are small, with a bottom surface of less than 100 m2 and located in remote topographic niches (Oporovina Pečina [3], Zapadna Pećina [11], Koronina Cave [31]). The increased number of known sites of the Impresso culture indicates a more intense occupation and exploitation of the mountainous economic area in the Early Neolithic compared to the Middle Neolithic. In the time of the Danilo culture the settlement activities seem to have been reduced to the most favorable places and as a rule the occupied caves were already keeping Early Neolithic remains. Solely on the Islands Hvar (Grapčeva

Vaganačka Peć [9] exhibits a stratigraphy with cultural layers of 4 m thickness running from Mesolithic to Early, Middle, and Late Neolithic, Eneolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. The spacious hall cave with a 25 m wide entrance is situated in a distance of only 4 km from the present day coastline, but in an altitude of 700 m and lies next to a passage crossing the Velebit Mountains from the

132

THE EARLY HOLOCENE OCCUPATION OF CAVES IN THE BALKANS Špilja [19], Pokrivenik Pećina [20]) and Korčula (Žukovica Špilja [22]) the Danilo culture entered new shelters.

factual assemblages reflect also a common consumption of shells and snails. On the other hand the Odmut Cave [33] yielded information about environment and subsistence strategies in the midlands of Montenegro. The wild fauna of the Mesolithic layers testifies dense forests with abundant water in the neighborhood of the cave. A surprisingly high percentage of ibex bones indicate a specialized hunting of this particular animal. Besides the ibex, red deer and fish played a major role for the nutrition of the Mesolithic groups inhabiting the Rockshelter of Odmut.

Similar observations can be seen in the case of the Late Neolithic. Most of the Late Neolithic cave settlements reveal residues of a preceding Neolithic occupation. Only on the Islands of Hvar (Vela Špilja  [18]), Korčula (Jakasova Špilja  [23]), and Lastova (Rača Pećina [24]) primary occupations of caves are attested by the Hvar culture. The marine zone of the Islands Hvar and Korčula was sporadically occupied in the Early Neolithic and experienced a continuous aggregation of settlement activities in the Middle and Late Neolithic periods.

In addition, the Caves of Odmut [33] and Crvena Stijena [30] reveal informations about the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic economy in the hinterland of the Adriatic coast. Within the Mesolithic layer 1 of Odmut Cave [30], bones of goat already have been observed. In layer 2 domestic cattle and sheep/goat occur together with pottery, while the flint industry maintains Mesolithic character (Müller 1994, 201).

Environment And Subsistence Evidence for the environment, patterns of life, and subsistence strategies are mainly provided, in the case of cave sites, by archaeological artifacts, ecofacts, and botanical and macrofaunal relicts.

Strata 4 and 3 in the Crvena Stijena Cave [30] (Fig. 6.4) revealed silex and bone tools of unmixed Mesolithic character as well as residues of an economy mainly based on hunting. Additionally, already in the anterior layer four bones of domestic cattle and sheep/goat have been found. An even stronger contrast presents the subsequent layer 3. The material culture of Mesolithic habitus undoubtedly embodied a considerable amount of pottery assigned to the Impresso culture. But a complete break with Mesolithic traditions was not noticed until stratum 2, which is already belonging to the Middle Neolithic period.

In this way, the animal bones from the Mesolithic deposits of Loza Pečina [1] in Istria show a forest fauna typical of the Pre-Boreal and Boreal climatic phase. The archaeological evidence, characterized by the presence of several fireplaces together with the remarkable scarcity of artifacts, sugggests a repeated but short term pattern of attendances of Mesolithic hunter gatherer groups. In contrast, Kopačina Špilja [16] on the Island Brač delivered a huge amount of Epipalaeolithic and Early Mesolithic flint artifacts, implying a long term and intensely occupatied location. In the inner part of the cave a compact layer of snail shells with 10 to 30 cm thickness was found. It was radiocarbon dated to the Early Holocene. Obviously, the inner part of the cave served as a storage room for snails over a long time span. The numerous animal bones suggest that the inhabitants of the cave were basically game hunters, but they also hunted birds and collected snails. Fish remains were also found.

Authors like Čedomir Marković considered these results as evidence for the formation of the Early Neolithic emerging directly out of an indigenous Mesolithic base (Marković 1985, 92; Mlekuž 2003). Meanwhile, Müller explained these mixed cultural complexes in Montenegro with the adoption of Neolithic elements in the Late Mesolithic setting (Müller 1994, 200-203). Firstly, the sheep/goat husbandry was adopted in a later stage followed by the technology of pottery. Müller’s presumption that there was a contemporaneity between Late Mesolithic groups in the mountainous zone of Montenegro and an Early Neolithic population along the Adriatic coast is supported by radiocarbon dates, which also display an overlapping of ca. 4 centuries (Müller 1994, 200-201, fig. 76). Moreover, thanks to Müller, we now have a survey of the distribution of Early Neolithic cave sites and openair settlements in regard to the environmental factors involved (Müller 1994, 42-64). The so called “site catchment analysis” as well as the “cluster analysis” of regional factors were adopted. A subsistence model of the Impresso culture emerged as a result of this analysis. According to Müller, open-air settlements are generally situated in areas of lower rainfall, in plains, or edges of karst plateaus, and always in the vicinity of fertile soil. In contrast, cave sites are located in varying forms of landscape reaching far into the Dinarian Mountains. Typical for

A similar feature was found in the Mesolithic stratum of Vaganačka Peč [9] at the western slope of the Velebit Mountains, which revealed three layers of snail shells, indicating their systematic collecting, storing, and consumption. The cultural layers of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Vela Spila [21] on Korčula Island impressively display the change from a terrestrial to a marine subsistence strategy. At the beginning of the Holocene the Adriatic sea level rose about 100 m, and consequently the distance from the shore to Vela Špila decreased from 15 km to a few hundred meters. As a result of these radical environmental changes red deer, wild horses, and wild cattle disappeared gradually and were replaced by marine food resources such as fish, shellfish, and seashells. Frequent finds of large fish bones such as tuna and swordfish indicate developed techniques of deep sea fishing. The emergences of numerous simple bone needles within the arti-

133

FRANK FALKENSTEIN cave settlements are karst areas with elevated precipitations with temperate winter temperatures, where nowadays livestock can be overwintered without stables and feeding (Müller 1994, 42-50). According to this model, the distribution of flatland settlements and cave sites reflect two complementary subsistence strategies, which, put together, present a mixed economy of the Early Neolithic. Since mainly crop cultivation was practised at the open settlements, caves served as temporary camp sites for pasture activities and perhaps for hunting too. The considerable distances between the temporary cave camps in the mountains and the sedentary flatland settlements point to a kind of seasonal transhumance (Müller 1994, 50-64).

fishing and the occasional collecting of seafood played a certain role (Batović 1979, 551-554). In contrast, in the Middle Neolithic stratum 2 of Crvena Stijena Cave [30] intense hunting activities are proved, and of domestic animals only goat is detected in a noteworthy number, which hints that crop cultivation is lacking (Batović 1979, 551). In the Late Neolithic Hvar culture the subsistence strategies underwent at most a gradual change, where again flatland settlements and cave sites seem to be associated with different economic activities. Hatches of stone and antler such as grinding stones found in the sites of Smilčić and Lisičić indicate an extensive crop production in open-air settlements. The contemporary cave settlements are all missing remains of local crop production. In Markova Špilja [17] on Hvar Islandthe consumption of cereal can be proved by finds of grinding stones, but again this hints on the absence of crop cultivation as it is also the case of Grapčeva Špilja [19] (Batović 1979, 608). A strongly developed animal husbandry can be asserted in the coastal flatland settlement of Lisičić, while hunting was intensely practised in the mountainous open-air settlement Smilčić (Batović 1979, 608, 610-611).

This model is confirmed by the spectrum of excavated artifacts. In cave sites flint blades with sickle gloss such as grinding stones as residues of harvesting and processing cereals are absent. Otherwise, the occurrence of seashells in considerable assemblages as occasional supplement of nutrition in the Gudnja Cave [25], Crvene Stijena Cave [30], and Gospodska Pećina [10] indicates an intense exchange of persons and commodities between the coast and the hinterland (Müller 1994, 67). Though the number of Early Neolithic cave sites with investigated faunal material is small, the results are significant. The animal bones of Gospodska Pećina [10] and Spila Peć [34] represent nearly exclusively domestic animals, predominantly sheep/goat, followed by domestic cattle, while domestic pigs are conspicuously under represented as it is the case of wild game. From this material, it can be concluded that caves served primarily as base camps for the practice of a transhumant pasture economy of ruminants, whereas hunting scarcely played a role in subsistence strategies.

The economic function of cave sites belonging to the Hvar culture is not well known. In Hateljska Pećina [26], situated in the hinterland of the Adriatic coast, considerable amounts of animal bones of wild and domestic species were found. Sheep or goat bones dominated, while the number of cattle bones was small. Snail shells and freshwater shells were commonly found, but there is an obvious lack of cereal remains or rather hints for consuming cereal products.

For the Middle and Late Neolithic, much less data are available. On the basis of what was obtained from the multilayered open-air settlement of Smilčič in northern Dalmatia, Müller infers to a higher productivity of the Middle Neolithic settlement in comparison with the Early Neolithic occupation. Possibly, the decrease of the number of settlements together with an obvious retreat to convenient positions by the Danilo culture were associated with an increasing concentration of population in core settlements (Müller 1994, 195, fig. 79).

Similar to the Early Neolithic, a complementary organisation of subsistence strategies is looming. The observable relative increase of cave sites in the Late Neolithic could reflect an intensification of animal husbandry, in particular a seasonal transhumance practice between the littoral and the mountains. However, the verification of this assumption will for now have to be reserved to archaeological investigations of the future.

In the same direction point results of a regional survey in the plain of Ravni Kotari in northern Dalmatia accomplished by John C. Chapman and his colleagues. In the survey area the higher population density in the early farming periods led to smaller and more compact breeding networks. In the Middle and Late Neolithic settlement foci were so small that interaction networks appear poorly developed (Chapman, Shiel and Batović 1996, 66).

Although Albania, situated at the southeastern Adriatic coast, is geographically connected to Dalmatia and Montenegro, it reveals differing coastal landscapes. The northern and central sections of the Albanian coast show a broad plain with a shallow decline into the Adriatic Sea. The hinterland is composed of fold mountain ranges with abrupt differences in elevation, karst formations, plateaus, and fertile valleys. Conspicuous is the absence of Neolithic settlements in the coastal plains, instead, sites are known from the river valleys and basins of the mountainous zone. In the Albanian Neolithic period, fertile basins, tableland, elevated riverbanks, and karst caves were preferred for occupation. As a rule of thumb, open-air settlements are multilayered and usually reveal cultural stratigraphies of at least some meters in thickness.

Albania

Comparing with the Early Neolithic, subsistence strategies in the Danilo culture continued without drastic alterations. As economic branches, plant cultivation, animal husbandry, fishing, hunting, and gathering subsisted, while the focus of the subsistence was determined by the microregional environment. For instance in the littoral,

134

THE EARLY HOLOCENE OCCUPATION OF CAVES IN THE BALKANS subsidiary functions of the Albanian cave settlements within the Neolithic economy.

Recently, thanks to Muzafer Korkuti, we now have a comprehensive description and analysis of the Neolithic in Albania (Korkuti 1995). The Early, Middle, and Late Neolithic stages are used by Korkuti synchronous to the terminology in Dalmatia, Montenegro, and Herzegovina. In particular in the Korça Basin, situated in southeast Albania, a complete sequence of the Neolithic development has been recorded. The Early Neolithic is characterized by the Podgori 1 group, the Middle Neolithic corresponds with the phases Dunavec 1 and 2, and finally the Late Neolithic is defined according to the settlement phase Maliq 1a (Korkuti 1995, 253-259, fig. 26). Hitherto, the existence of a Mesolithic in Albania could not definitely be detected (Müller 1994, 332; Korkuti 1995, 82-83). Therefore, the primary Holocene occupation of caves seems to have taken place in the Early Neolithic period.

Bulgaria The investigation of the Neolithic occupation of caves in Bulgaria is still in its early stages. All of the few investigated cave sites with traces of Neolithic occupation are situated at the northern fringe of Stara Planina. These Balkan Mountains in their original sense embrace a ridge of fold mountains bordering the peri-Mediterranean zone of central Bulgaria to the continental Danube area. It is in the same microregion that the Loveč Cave [42] and Devetaki Cave [41]are located. The karst cave system of Loveč Cave [42] revealed settlement finds of the Early Neolithic with pottery yielding features of the Starčevo culture. The macrofaunal remains are represented by domestic cattle and sheep/goat as well as wild game. In the large hall Devetaki Cave [41] a rich settlement layer of the Late Neolithic, in superposition of a stratum of the Starčevo culture, was found. Within the cave hall domestic installations such as hearths and ovens were discovered, which resembled features of Late Neolithic tell settlements in northeastern Bulgaria. Also the comprehensive assemblages of pottery, tools of stone, flint, bone, and copper as well as ritual objects conform to the material culture of contemporary multilayered settlements (Todorova 1982).

Scarcely reliable conclusions about the proportion of open-air sites and cave sites can be made or rather proposed, even though the number of Neolithic settlements is very small. Remarkably, in the Early Neolithic the investigated flatland settlements (8 sites) are clearly prevailing in comparison to cave settlements (3 sites). In contrast, in the Middle Neolithic (4 open-air sites, 5 cave sites) and Late Neolithic (6 open-air sites, 4 cave sites) the numerical proportion seems to be more balanced. The three known caves revealing Early Neolithic layers, Blaz Cave [35], Katundas Cave [36], and Nezir Cave [38], were also occupied in the Middle Neolithic. In Katundas Cave [36] remains of all phases of the Neolithic period were detected as well as of the Bronze and Iron Ages. The intensive settlement activities reflected in a comprehensive archaeological material are due to the fact that the specific small karst cave is situated at the cross point of two overland routes. In contrast to this, the favorable situated hall Nezir Cave [38] has provided only small amounts of Early to Middle Neolithic finds. Therefore, repeated but intermittent occupations can be reconstructed.

In the karst area around the town of Trnovo with the adjacent caves of Malkata podlisža [43] and Golămata Peštera [44] two sites with relicts of a Neolithic occupation are known. The knowledge of Neolithic activities in the Malkata podlisža Cave [44] is very limited, but Golămata Peštera Cave [44] provided a considerable amount of cultural material dating to the Late Neolithic. Compared to the regularly occupied caves of the Impresso culture in the eastern Adriatic area, the Early Neolithic cave sites in Bulgaria seem to be exceptional. Since the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture mainly spread in the central Balkans and middle Danube area, it is almost exclusively known from open-air settlements (Garašanin 1979, 120-122). Not accidentally, cave finds of the Starčevo culture solely appear at the periphery of its distribution, for instance in Odmut Cave [33], and in Montenegro like Loveč Caves [42] and finally Devetaki Cave [41] in Bulgaria.

Due to mostly small scale excavations conducted thus far, the Albanian caves have revealed less archaeological material than the multilayered settlements. Nevertheless, the material of the Katundas Cave [36] should be more or less representative of the Neolithic occupation. Even if implements made of stone, flint, and bone are frequent in the Katundas Cave [36], the spectrum of artifact types seems to be restricted. This explains the absence of grinding stones in Katundas Cave [36] and other caves. Not less conspicuous is the missing ritual accessory including miniature altars as well as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic terracotta idols, which are abundant in the flatland settlements in all phases of the Neolithic period (Korkuti 1995, pls. 8, 14, 15, 21, 40-42, 48, 82).

For the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of northern Bulgaria the rule are highly developed tell settlements situated at the fringes of fertile plains. Cave camps obviously were no integral part of this settlement pattern (Todorova 1982, 1-15, 44-58; Todorova 1995, 83-87). Perhaps due to the fact that caves did not fulfil a complementary function in the economy of tell settlements, irregular caves sites in the Balkan range present nearly a standard subsistence and pattern of living.

Even if data about subsistence strategies in the cave sites are lacking in default of zoological and botanical surveys, the restricted spectrum of artifacts points to selective and

135

FRANK FALKENSTEIN Occupation: EN, LN; altitude: 40 m ASL Reference: Batović 1979, 477; Müller 1994, 325 14. Škarin Samograd, Mideno Mountain Occupation: EN, MN, LN; dimensions: 49 x 28 m Reference: Müller 1988, 1994, 324-325 15. Krcina Jama, Grlo Occupation: M; dimensions: 50 x 19 m Reference: Zekan 1977, 137-147; Müller 1994, 326 16. Kopačina špilja, Brač Island Occupation: M Reference: Čečuk 1996, 13-30 17. Markova Špilja, Hvar Island Occupation: EN, MN, LN; altitude: 57 m ASL; dimensions: 31 x 12 m Reference: Novak 1974, 75-220; Batović 1979, 496-501, 508-513, 571-578, 584-592, 598-628; Čečuk 1982, 3562; Novak and Čečuk 1982, 11-34; Müller 1994, 326-327 18. Vela Špilja, Hvar Island Occupation: LN; dimensions: 14 x 3 m Reference: Čečuk 1970, 23; Batović 1979, 482-483 19. Grapčeva Špilja, Hvar Island Occupation: MN, LN Reference: Benac 1979, 371 20. Pokrivenik Pećina, Hvar Island Occupation: MN, LN; altitude: 50 m ASL; dimensions: 27 x 11 m Reference: Novak 1949, 150-157; Batović 1979, 478-479 21. Vela Spila, Korčula Island Occupation: M, EN, MN, LN; altitude 130 m ASL; dimensions: 50 x 30 m Reference: Müller 1994, 330; Čečuk and Radić 2005 22. Žukovica Špilja, Korčula Island Occupation: MN, LN; altitude: 100 m ASL; dimensions: 17 x 8 m Reference: Radić 2002, 55-69 23. Jakasova Špilja, Korčula Island Occupation: LN; altitude 50 m ASL; dimensions: L 70 m Reference: Novak 1954, 44-45; Batović 1979, 479 24. Rača Pećina, Lastova Island Occupation: LN; altitude: 50 m ASL; dimensions: 35 x 15 m Reference: Novak 1955, 227-229; Batović 1979, 479 25. Gudnja Cave, Pelješac Island Occupation: EN, MN, LN; altitude: 406 m ASL; dimensions: L 20 m Reference: Batović 1966, 96-98; 1979, 482; Müller 1994, 330-331

Catalogue Of Cave Sites Registered are all regarded cave sites including details about their Early Holocene occupation, altitude above sea level, and dimensions so far made available. Abbreviations: M = Mesolithic, EN = Early Neolithic, MN = Middle Neolithic, LN = Late Neolithic ASL = above sea level L = length, W = width Croatia 1. Loza, Šapjane Occupation: M; dimensions: L 45 m Reference: Malez 1971, 215-227; 1974, 17-49; 1979, 242 2. Klanjčeva Peć, Čićarija Occupation: M; altitude: 828 m ASL; dimensions: 29 x 10 m Reference: Malez 1974, 17-49; 1979, 234-235 3. Oporovina Pečina, Medveja Occupation: M, EN; altitude: 325 m ASL; dimensions: 10 x 6, 12 x 6 m Reference: Malez 1979, 244; Müller 1994, 312 4. Podosojna Peć; Moščenice Occupation: M; altitude: 335 m ASL; dimensions: 16 x 47m Reference: Malez 1974, 17-49; 1979, 249 5. Vorganska Peć; Krk Island Occupation: EN; altitude: 380 m ASL Reference: Miroslavljević 1962, 178-179; Batović 1979, 482 6. Jamina Sredi, Cres Island Occupation: EN, MN, LN Reference: Miroslavljević 1959, 131-174; 1962, 172-212; 1971, 102-105; Batović 1979, 481; Müller 1994, 313 7. Vela Špilja, Lošinja Island Occupation: EN, MN, LN; dimensions: 35 x 10 m Reference: Miroslavlevic 1968; Batović 1979, 481-482; Müller 1994, 314-316 8. Golubnjača Pećina, Kosinja Occupation: LN; altitude: 558 m ASL; dimensions: 14 x 13 m Reference: Drechsler-Bižić 1970, 111-113; Batović 1979, 482 9. Vaganačka Peč, Starigrad Occupation: M, EN, MN, LN; altitude: 700 m ASL; dimensions: 25 x 15 m Reference: Forenbacher and Vranjican 1985; Müller 1994, 316-317 10. Gospodška Pečina, Vrlika Occupation: EN, MN, LN; altitude: 430 m ASL; dimensions: L 32 m Reference: Marović 1976; Müller 1994, 325-326. 11. Zapadna Pećina, Drniš Occupation: M; dimensions: 20 x 3-4 m Reference: Malez 1975, 121-153; Müller 1994, 323 12. Tamnica, Bitelica Occupation: M; altitude: 355 m ASL Reference: Müller 1994, 326 13. Tradanj, Krka River

Herzegovina 26. Hateljska Pećina; Stolac Occupation: EN, LN; dimension: 28 x 20 m Reference: Müller 1994, 329; Marijanović 2000, 207-228 27. Ravlića Pećina, Imotski Occupation: EN, MN, LN; altitude: 210 m ASL Reference: Marijanović 1981; Müller 1994, 328 28. Zelena Pećina, Mostar Occupation: EN, MN, LN; altitude: 600 m ASL Reference: Benac 1957; Batović 1979, 481; Müller 1994, 328-329 29. Žukovičk Pećina, Posušja Occupation: EN, MN, LN

136

THE EARLY HOLOCENE OCCUPATION OF CAVES IN THE BALKANS Reference: Marijanovic 1978, 5-10; Müller 1994, 328

36. Katundas Cave, Katundas Occupation: EN, MN, LN Reference: Korkuti 1995, 85-89, 162-166, 196-197 37. Konispol Cave, Konispol Occupation: MN, LN Reference: Korkuti 1995, 173-174, 199 38. Nezir Cave, Koder Laç Occupation: EN, MN, LN; altitude: 400 m ASL Reference: Korkuti 1995, 84, 170-171 39. Tren cave, Lake Prespa Occupation: MN; 856 m ASL; dimensions: L 12 m Reference: Korkuti 1995, 166-167 40. Velča Cave, Velča Occupation: LN Reference: Korkuti 1995, 198-199

Montenegro 30. Crvena Stijena Cave, Petrovici Occupation: M, EN, MN Reference: Benac 1957, 1958, 21-64; Basler et al. 1975; Basler 1979, 383-384; Batović 1979, 480-481; Müller 1994, 331. 31. Koronina, Cetinje Occupation: EN Reference: Markovic 1985, 27-28; Müller 1994, 332 32. Medena Stijena, Ćehotina River Occupation: M; altitude: 558 m ASL; dimensions: 14 x 11 m Reference: Srejović 1989, 485-490 33. Odmut Cave, Piva River Occupation: M, EN, MN, LN; altitude: 700 m ASL; W 26 m Reference: Marković 1974; Srejović 1977; Basler 1979, 384-386; Batović 1979, 483; Marković 1985, 93-94; Müller 1994, 329-330 34. Spila Peć, Sveti Ilja Mountain Occupation: EN, LN; altitude: 320 m ASL Reference: Markovic 1985, 15-27; Müller 1994, 331-332

Bulgaria 41. Devetaki Cave, Devetaki Occupation: EN, LN Reference: Mikov and Džjambazov 1960; Stojanov 1993, 20 42. Loveč Caves, Loveč Occupation: EN, MN Reference: Džjambazov 1963 43. Malkata podlisža, Beljakovež Occupation: EN(?) Reference: Popov 1913, 1938 44. Golămata Peštera, Beljakovež Occupation: MN, LN Reference: Popov 1938

Albania 35. Blaz Cave, Blaz Occupation: EN, MN Reference: Müller 1994, 332; Korkuti 1995, 82-83, 169170.

137

FRANK FALKENSTEIN Bibliography Džjambazov, N. 1963. “Les Grottes de Loveč, (Academie des Sciences de Bulgarie),” BIABulg 26, pp. 238-241.

Basler, Đ. 1979. “Nalazišta Paleolitskog i Mezolitskog doba u Crnoj Goru”, in Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja I, Paleolit i Mezolit, A. Benac, ed., Sarajevo, pp. 383-386.

Forenbacher S. and P. Vranjican. 1985. “Vaganačka Pećina - Vaganačka Cave,” OpArch 19, pp. 1-21.

Basler, Đ., A. Benac, M. Malez, K. Brunnacker, and J. Pamić. 1975. Crvena Stijena, Nikšić.

Garašanin, M. 1979. “Centralnobalkanska Zona,” in Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II, Neolitsko Doba, M. Garašanin, ed., Sarajevo, pp. 79-212.

Batović, Š. 1966. Stariji Neolit u Dalmaciji, Zadar. ______.1979. “Jadranska Zona,” in PraistorijajJgoslavenskih Zemalja II, Neolitsko Doba, M. Garašanin, ed., Sarajevo, pp. 473-634.

Korkuti, M. 1995. Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien, (Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans, Monographien 4), Mainz am Rhein.

Benac, A. 1957a. “Crvena Stijena - 1955 (I-IV Stratum),” Glasnik Zemalskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevo n.s. 12, pp. 19-51.

Malez, M. 1971. “Kvartargeološka i Speleološka Istraživanja u 1971. Godini,” Ljetopis Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti Zagreb 76, pp. 215-227.

______.1957b. “Zelena Pećina,” Glasnik Zemalskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevo n.s. 12, pp. 6192.

______.1974. “Istraživanje Paleolitika i Mezolitika na Području,” Liburnijske Teme 1, pp. 17-49. .1975. “Neki Problemi Palaeolitika na isto noj Obali Jadrana,” Arheološki Radovi I Rasprave Zagreb 17, pp. 121-153.

______.1958. “Crvena Stijena – 1956,” Glasnik Zemalskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevo n.s. 13, pp. 21-64. ______.1979. “Prelazna Zona,” in Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II, Neolitsko Doba, M. Garašanin, ed., Sarajevo, pp. 363-470.

______.1979. “Paleolitske i Mezolitske Doba u Hrvatskoj,” in Paleolit i Mezolit, (Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja I), A. Benac, ed., Sarajevo, pp. 195-297.

Boroneánt, V. 1996. “The Mesolithic Habitation Complexes in the Balkans and Danube Basin,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, (Section 7, The Mesolithic), S.K. Kozlowskí, ed., (Forli, 8-14 September 1996, A.B.A.C.O.), Forli, pp. 59-77.

Marijanović, B. 1978. “Nova Nalažista Impresso Culture u Hercegovini,” Glasnik Zemalskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevo, n.s. 33, pp. 5-21. ______.1981. “Ravlića Pećina (Peć Mlini),” Glasnik Zemalskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevo, n.s. 35/36 [1980-81], pp. 1-97.

Čečuk, B. 1970. “Vela Spilja, Hvar,” Archeološki Pregled 12, p. 23.

______.2000. Prilozi za Prapovijest u Zaleđu u Jadranske Obale, Zadar.

______.1982. “Kamene in Koštane Rukotvorine Markove Spilje 3,” Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave Zagreb 8-9, pp. 35-62.

Marković, Č. 1974. “The Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Odmut Cave,” ArchIug 15, pp. 8-12.

______.1996. “Špilja Kopačina kod Donjeg Humca na otoku Braču (Isvorni Znanstveni Rad),” Arheološki Radovi I Rasprave Zagreb 12, pp. 13-30.

______.1985. Neolit Crne Gore, (Centar za Arheološka Istraživanja Filozofskog Fakulteta u Beogradu, Knjiga 5), Belgrad.

Čečuk, B. and D. Radić. 2005. Vela Spila. Višeslojno Pretpovijesno Nalazište Vela Luka - otok Korčula, Vela Luka.

Marović, I. 1976. “Rezultati Arheološkog Sondiranja u Gospodka Pećini kod vrela Cetine,” Vjesnik Split 72-73, pp. 13-48.

Chapman, J.C., R. Shiel and Š. Batović. 1996. The Changing Face of Dalmatia: Archaeological and Ecological Studies in a Mediterranean Landscape, (Society of Antiquaries of London Research Report 54), London.

Mikov, V. and N. Džjambazov. 1960. Devetaschkata Peschiera, Sofia. Miroslavljević, V. 1959. “‘Jamina Sredi’, Prilog Prethistorijskoj kulturi na Otoku Cresu,” Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave Zagreb 1, pp. 131-174.

Drechsler-Bižić, R. 1970. “Zaščitna Iskopavanja Pećine Golubnjače kod Kosinja,” Vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu 4, pp. 111-113.

138

THE EARLY HOLOCENE OCCUPATION OF CAVES IN THE BALKANS ______.1962. “Impresso-cardium Keramika na Otocima Cresa, Lošinja i Krka,” Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave Zagreb 2, pp. 172-212.

______.1974. “Markova Špilja na otoku Hvaru 5,” Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave Zagreb 7, pp. 75-220.

______.1968. “Vela Spilja, Prethistorijsko Nalazište na Otoku Lošinju,” Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave Zagreb 6, pp. 27-60.

Novak, G. and B. Čečuk. 1982. “Markova Špilja 6,” Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave Zagreb 8-9, pp. 11-34. Popov, R. 1913. “Malkata Podlisža Höhle beim Dorfe Beljakovež, unweit der Stadt Tirnovo (Nordbulgarien),” PZ 5, pp. 449-460.

______.1971. “Jamina Sredí dans l ´île de Cres,” in Epoque Préhistorique et Protohistorique en Yugoslavie, Beograd, (Rescherches et Résultats), G. Novak, ed., Belgrade, pp. 102-105.

Popov, R. 1938. “Die ‘Grosse’ und die ‘Kleine Höhle’ bei dem Kloster von Drenovo,” BIABulg 12, pp. 314-340.

Montagnari Kokelj, E. 2002. “The Prehistoric Caves of the Triest Karst (Northeast Italy): Homes, Stables, Cemeteries...?” in Material Evidence and Cultural Pattern in Prehistory: Contributions to the Theory and History of the Household and Burial Customs, L. Nicolova, ed., Sofi, Karlovo, pp. 13-17.

Radić, D. 2002. “The Žukovica Cave - A Prehistoric Site at the Coast of the Peljšac Channel,” Prähistorische Archaeologica 26, pp. 55-69. Srejović, D. 1977. “The Odmut Cave: A New Facies of the Mesolithic Culture of the Balkan Peninsula,” ArchIug 15, pp. 3-7. Srejović, D. 1989. “The Mesolithic of Serbia and Montenegro,” in The Mesolithic in Europe (Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium Edinburgh 1985), C. Bonsall, ed., Edinburgh, pp. 485-490.

Müller, J. 1988. “Škarin Samograd - eine frühneolithische Station mit monochromer Ware und Impresso-Keramik an der Ostadria,” ArchKorrBL 18, pp. 219-235. ______.1994. Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes, (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 9), Berlin.

Stojanov, M. 1993. “Archäologische Rettungsausgrabungen in der Devetaschka-Höhle, Saison – 1992,” Godišnik na Muzeite ot Severna Bulgaria 19, p. 20.

Novak, G. 1949. “Izveštaj o Prethistorijskim Istraživanjima otoka Hvara,” Ljetopis Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti Zagreb 55, pp. 150-157.

Todorova, H. 1995. “The Neolithic, Eneolithic and Transitional Period in Bulgarian Prehistory,” in Prehistoric Bulgaria, D.W. Bailey and I. Panayotov, eds., (Monographs in World Archaeology 22), Madison, pp. 79-98.

______.1954. “Arheološka Istraživanjja na otoku Korčuli i Hvaru,” Ljetopis Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti Zagreb 59, pp. 44-45.

Zekan, M. 1977. “Novi Arheološki Nalazi u Pećinama Srednje Dalmacije,” Vjesnik Split 70-71 (1968-69), pp. 137-47.

______.1955. “Grpčeva Špilja,” in Prethistorijski Hvar, (Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts), Zagreb, pp. 227-229.

139

FRANK FALKENSTEIN

Figure 6.1. Mesolithic and Neolithic cave sites in the east Adriatic area (Croatia, Herzegovina, Montenegro). Numbers refer to the cave site register at the end of the paper.

Figure 6.3. View of the Odmut rockshelter [33] in Montenegro (Marković 1974, Fig. 1).

Figure 6.2. The Interior of Vela spila [21] on the Island of Korčula (Čečuk & Radić 2005, Fig. 14).

140

THE EARLY HOLOCENE OCCUPATION OF CAVES IN THE BALKANS

Figure 6.4. View of Crvena stijena [30] in Montenegro (Benac 1957a, Fig. B).

141

STELLA KATSAROU AND ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

7 Perspectives Of Symbolism And Ritualism For The Late Neolithic Communities At Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia Stella Katsarou and Adamantios Sampson Introduction The present paper has stemmed from our basic questioning on what the cave of Sarakenos, Boeotia, producing elaborate ceramic and figurative artifacts, should be attributed with: domesticity, symbolism or ritualism, or all the three together? Our comparative review of older research on Greek Neolithic cave contexts has shown that those aspects have frequently been evoked in various combinations, though in a self-explanatory, normative and stereotyped way. Our main goal here is to overcome the dichotomized modernist assumptions on the Neolithic use of caves, and explore how to move our assessment from the explanatory framework to contextual interpretation and the dynamic terrains of meaningfulness. By intention, citations to old-repeated theoretical works will be minimal in this paper. Subsistence Versus Ritual Norms The use of caves in the Greek Neolithic has been put under the umbrella of the broader cultural and explanatory economy and ideology paradigms and adaptation processes which were formulated for this period. The major schemes of this theoretical trend in Greek archaeology, which were evident in Theocharis’s monumental work (1973), have considerably directed the principles of subsequent scholarship. In respect of caves, the application of these paradigms has been mostly strengthened by the Middle-to-Late Neolithic cultural shift, and the wider consumption practices and presumed social conflicts at the time when a marked geographical spread of cave use over the Greek Mainland and the Aegean takes place. The pattern was also supported by the rapid increase in the range of the artifacts transported inside caves from that period onwards, compared to the preceding material culture. Abundant variable ceramic containers, large amounts of tools, figurines and other equipment comprising of jewellery and many smaller accessories have constituted the generic idea for the Greek Late Neolithic cave material culture that we all share. The pattern-painted styles in particular have been the focus of attention for their expansion over a wide range of pottery technologies and aesthetics of color, such as the Black and the Grey Burnished, the Matt and the Polychrome Painted, the Crusted, and the latest Urfirnis and Red-on-Light wares (Phelps 2004), all of them fully attested in Greek Late Neolithic caves of the southern Mainland and the Aegean. Major sites include the caves Skoteini in Euboea (Sampson 1993, 56), Zas in Naxos (Zachos 1999),

142

Sarakenos in Boeotia (Sampson 2008, 386), Kouveleiki A (Koumouzelis 1989) and Alepotrypa (Papathanasopoulos 2011) in Lakonia, Franchthi in the Argolid (Vitelli 1993), the Corycian Antron in Boeotia (Touchais 1981), Theopetra in Thessaly (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000), Drakaina in Kephalonia (Stratouli 2007), and Lion’s Cave in Attika (Karali, Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2006) to mention the most exemplary. In greatest amount painted vessels are bowls with a shallow or broad deep -convex, conical, carinated or converging- profile that could be appropriate for cold food-mixing, eating and drinking, and wouldn’t be easily attributed a cooking function on direct fire; only a small number of them belong to deep close-necked transport pots (Phelps 2004, 87; Sampson 1993, 67; 2008, 112). Alongside elaborate vessels, caves host an even broader collection of variable coarsely treated cooking containers and storage jars, together with a copious record of monochrome burnished vessels. The question has been continuously raised among scholars: what were all these variable sophisticated and coarse containers for inside the Neolithic caves? For theorists in support of dichotomized cultural “packages”, the answer only depends on the direction the prism has been looked through. Objects found inside caves are considered as reflecting axiomatic roles and prescribed identities. They are seen as products manufactured in the course of a systemic line that can be diachronically and universally explained. Such explanations for the Neolithic past would only stem from present modernist conventions and preconceptions which are regarding culture as austerely dichotomized to bipolar sides, such as the object versus subject divide and the mind versus body contrast, and conceive material and ideological world throughout a scheme of hierarchies. In the same way functionality and domesticity are put on the opposite side or reduced to a lower level of significance compared to ideology, symbolism, aesthetics, quality, display, and prestige. This is a point that generates epistemological impasses if not adequately comprehended in fieldwork and lab: actually before any explanatory conclusions are set on paper, our classification methodology has applied these bipolar categorisations on the cave’s material culture already in the laboratory by effectuating detailed hierarchical taxonomies (see monochromes versus painted) and by disassociating certain morphological categories. Functionalists and processualists would therefore stereotypically explain the abundance of rough and plain ceramics in caves as evidence that the places served for satellite or seasonal sites to permanent domestic establishments, and for crucial spots within trading communal networks, as stated by most relevant assessments in collective volumes, monographs and papers (see indicatively papers in Papathanasopoulos 1996; 2011; Zachos 1999; Sampson 1993, 273; 1997, 328-35; Touchais 1981, 171-2; Lambert 1981, 715-6; Koumouzelis 1989, 159; Kaznesi and Katsarou 1999-2001, 33; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000, 206; Trantalidou et al. 2010, 316). This approach would prioritize the perspective that caves were necessary for the set-

PERSPECTIVES OF SYMBOLISM AND RITUALISM FOR THE LATE NEOLITHIC COMMUNITIES AT SARAKENOS CAVE, BOEOTIA tlers to practice the range of functional activities that would secure their subsistence, protect and increase their livestock and preserve their harvested yield and food surplus. Caves have thus been repeatedly determined by these paradigms to serve for home shelters or refuges from natural hardships, for stabling, food-processing and storage, and for this reason they have been normatively evaluated in terms of location, orientation, domination of landscape, access to sea, plateaus, itineraries, and natural resources, as well as interior morphology and space availability. According to this approach, all mobile objects unearthed inside caves, dietary remains and structures, are primarily considered for their value contributing to the adaptation and subsistence strategies and the prosperity of the community, and are principally justified by their own function. The paradigm has accounted for the improvement, systematisation, and intensification of the expanded herding and farming strategies and the demographic increase that signals the beginning of the Late Neolithic: communities now have more products, more food, need more ceramic vessels, so they expand their dietary and food/drink consumption/storage habits to a range of new ceramic shapes as well as to new locations and landscapes to support their main homesteads. But they also use their surplus to produce or trade more wealth. While one pole of the theoretical line calls coarse pottery as domestic and humble and assigns lithics with a functional role by definition, on the other pole peculiar pots are thought as non-functional containers, and elaborate painted vessels are perceived as “expensive” and time-consuming products that would not be wisely manufactured to any functional expense. These sophisticated categories again serve the logic of functionality from the other side, as non-usable and non-practical containers constituting the society’s exchange potential (Perlès 1992; Perlès and Vitelli 1999). It is within this perception of divides that increasing cultic attributions for Greek Late Neolithic caves have been added to the normative models for subsistence, adaptation and functionality, as their alternatives or parallel possibilities of use. We observe though that these ceremonial attributions are borne from generic principles of ritualism applied by western philosophies on the “cave people” rather than recurring to the contingent association of the specific contextual data of each Greek Neolithic cave’s deposits. These automatic preconceptions derive from present established assumptions that caves are sacred mystic places (see papers in Moyes 2012), and from the impressive worship of mythological gods and deities they hosted in the Greek and Roman Antiquity. It is because of these preconceptions that prehistoric figurines and figurative items lie at the peak of modernist hierarchies as art and sacred objects that reflect or represent (this two words are crucial for the systemic paradigm) ideological modalities and prescribed religious beliefs, set within the range of desirable fruitfulness, protection and

143

increase of the community’s wealth which were usually attributed to prehistoric people (Theocharis 1973, 46; Orphanidis and Sampson 1993, 214; Talalay 1993, 46-7; see reassessment by Nanoglou 2009). To state some attributions, a ritual use is assigned to the painted vessels from the Cave of Alepotrypa in Laconia, by considering their location in the darkness as secure indication for non-functionality and for their particular use as offerings to the dead, an assumption that was further associated with the Classical mythological legend placing the entrance to the Hades at this certain location of the Peloponnese (Papathanassopoulos 2011). In the Skoteini Cave in central Euboea, where thick Late Neolithic deposits were related to intensive storage, some specific features of the pottery and stone tools have been disassociated to get a cultic value. In particular the rare relief on the surface of a pithos depicting an ithyphallic man next to a woman with a well marked pubis (Fig. 7.1) (Orphanidis and Sampson 1993, 206, fig. 202, 211, no 27) has been connected to generic fertility paradigms that were thought to direct certain ritual practices inside the cave (Orphanidis and Sampson 1993, 214-6). Similar speculations were also formulated for the considerable collection of scoops from the same cave, i.e. the black asymmetrical containers carrying a high vertical cylindrical handle on the back, and decoration by incised and dotted whitepasted patterns on the body (Fig. 7.2). In literature this pot has been attributed with the classicist term “rhyton” (see review in Sampson 1993; Phelps 2004, 103), and was associated with rituals solely because of its unusual shape. The choice for this specific term is a perfect example for the cross-cultural and cross-temporal normativisms run by traditional scholarship. The Zas Cave in Naxos is also attributed with cultic practices that were supposedly occurring alongside the domestic functions, and were evoked in reference to the spouted ceramic vessels and the outstanding gold artifact (Zachos 1999). In Euripides Cave, Salamina, Saronic Gulf, the occurrence of the copious distinctive Neolithic patternpainted and crusted pottery, of beads and silver jewellery has been explained as a hint that “some kind of standardized ritual acts and magic/religious performances” would take place at the site (Mari 2001, 184). At Drakaina Cave, Kephallonia, it is the repetitive reconstruction of the floors which was ascribed a ceremonial performance (Stratouli 2007). In Crete, Tomkins has recently strongly advocated for the ritual as opposed to the domestic use that he considers that is “by default” ascribed to the Neolithic caves on the island, and draws his arguments from their inaccessible location, uncomfortable interior space and rarity of, what he distinguishes as, “domestic” finds (Tomkins 2009). Several ritualistic assumptions are attributed also to Middle Neolithic contexts. Fruitstands and decorated containers from the Franchthi Cave have been assigned with “specific functions”, i.e. the burning of incense, aromatic

STELLA KATSAROU AND ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON gums and narcotic herbs “for special public occasions, i.e. ceremonies” (Vitelli 1993, 217), but without argumentation on their specific contextual evidence. At the Cave of Cyclops on the rocky island of Youra, North Sporades, the exceptional level of technical expertise and inspiration in regards with fine-patterned-painted pottery from the early 6th millennium (Fig. 7.3), and its location in the darkness, have motivated a narrative on travelling pilgrims from the open settlement of Hagios Petros, on the island of KyraPanagia, three miles across Youra, to practice ceremonial visits inside this specific cave chamber (KatsarouTzeveleki 2008). Indeed, it was already in the Middle Neolithic that the emphatic attributions for cultic practices in Neolithic settlements were constructed by Gimbutas (1989, 203-11). In Achilleion, Thessaly, she has developed an emblematic rhetoric about “libation” and “ceremonial” “sacrificial tables and vases” as part of her paradigm on the SE European Mother Goddess religion (see latest comments in Lesure 2011), which was another version of the constructed imaginary of modernist philosophy applied to prehistory. Summarizing, all above speculations have been seeking support on values deriving from our modern axioms on what the elaborate, idiosyncratic shape, complex patterning, time-invested manufacture, precious material and figurative morphologies are considered in comparison to plain objects. In the sense of this bipolar paradigm, we, scholars easily launch our explanations choosing from a handy and sketchy corpus between the two, the domestic or the ritual. Ritual vessels as mentioned in the above sites would not be regarded as domestic/functional at the same time, and presumed ceremonial performances would take place separately from any practical ordinary activity. Above explanatory categories are thought as independent clusters that exist as blocks within the cave’s cultures. With the use of such terms as ceremonial, cultic or ritual for the Neolithic, we directly associate sites, features or movable finds with the formal, patterned, and stereotyped public worship that we have in mind from later cultures, and would not in fact thoroughly explore the specific contextual contingency of deposition within each cave, and even within each certain deposit. As caves carry a heavy bias for the sacred and cult, most assessments for their ritualism in the Neolithic have also resulted out of this stereotyped universalism rather than the cave’s and the artifacts’ contextual associations themselves. What is indeed the content of this ceremonial paradigm that we unconsciously and automatically apply to Neolithic caves? Rituals point to codified and organized performances in the sense of biopolitics that would serve the manipulation of social dynamics, and the regulation of social conflicts. Rituals in the Bronze Age for example involve embodiment and mnemonic acts, and are created through standardized performances by upper social hierarchies who want to secure their dominant status (Hamilakis

144

2008). Feasting in particular may be one kind of such ritual practice when the commensality discourse and the sharing of food are part of organized acts. However, communal Neolithic feasting such as that identified at Makrygialos for example or other Greek Mainland sites (Papa et. al. 2004; Souvatzi 2008, 233) would not be automatically ascribed with a ceremonial value (Souvatzi 2008, 151) in the sense of a repetitive performative sharing of food or drink (Hayden 2001, 28, 31; Dietler 2001, 69; see papers in Kyriakidis 2007). The sequence of alternating contexts of fire and food consumption in Neolithic caves is not an adequate argument for ritualism. Is this enquiry though of any use actually? To prevent holistic models from creating a false sense of their autonomy, we need to reconsider old axioms by advising the influential post-modernist theories put forward since the ‘80s by great pioneers whose inspiring works we all know and would not need to cite here again. Any vessel form alone, as much as is currently preserved, cannot evidence to the entire sphere of meanings and choices that has directed its function, ceremonial or not. When artifacts are treated as decontextualized pieces, however unusual, complex or admirable they may be, and however stylistically reminiscent of testified ceremonial pieces from later periods, as are figurines for example, they cannot themselves establish the evidence to their ceremonial attribution. As materiality and technology are absolutely depending on instant conditions of meaningfulness rather than prescribed laws of form (Dobres and Hoffman 1999), ordinary ceramic morphologies are equally suitable to serve social complexity and ritual performances. Scoops from the Skoteini Cave or fruitstands from Franchthi Cave for example do not prove by shape their supposed ritual role. Neither would all Neolithic hearths in caves necessarily imply a ritual meaning. Painted vessels are not by rule ceremonial, but in fact they could serve ritualism as much as any ordinary container, if the human actor who applies the meanings, would choose for this ordinary container rather than for any idiosyncratic equipment. Older dichotomous thinking between functional versus ritual, polychrome versus monochrome, symbolic versus domestic, patterned versus plain, and subject versus object are indeed unable to show the wide spectrum of meanings that one single thing may have acquired along its biography within the different possible contexts of use. As already remarked, similar questions equally arise in respect of figurative artifacts. The figurines and the pithos relief from the Skoteini Cave for example do not prove by their shape and presence alone any systematically organized cult practice if the specific context of all related artifacts is not to be assessed. Figurines indeed are not ontologically cult objects as Nanoglou has discussed for the Greek Neolithic contexts (2009). Their function as religious equipments, or as dolls, images of certain individuals (Orphanidis and Sampson 1993, 214; Talalay 1993, 4850), or any other eventual use is each time indispensably directed by their context and situated material choices.

PERSPECTIVES OF SYMBOLISM AND RITUALISM FOR THE LATE NEOLITHIC COMMUNITIES AT SARAKENOS CAVE, BOEOTIA

It is true that the absence of architecture from caves and the occasionally disturbed stratigraphy compared to better preservation of built environment in settlements have contributed to additionally eliminate this contextual evidence for us today. On the other hand the better preservation of finds and especially of ceramics in cave contexts in comparison to the eroded fragments from the open settlements, has possibly favored the significance of caves as particular and non-functional places and increased biases for sacred practices and cult. Indeed, universalism and empirical approaches to ritualism has been the secure and stable base for older explanations, but interpretative questioning has now severely reconsidered their autonomy as arbitrary. The point here is that we have to take the first step in order to realize the false confidence of the large-scale paradigms on rituals and suspect that objects carry a hidden canvas of meaningful relations, reflections, responses and interactions between themselves, humans, and the landscape. This influential discourse that post-modernist archaeologies have conducted for prehistoric cultures by looking through the lens of interpretation, relativism, biography and agency, has not so far been put within the perspective of the Greek Neolithic cave studies. We hope to develop this discourse later here below by placing a new epistemological framework that will challenge established non-interpretative views in the first place, independently of its competence to answer its own questions in the end. Symbolism Symbolism is another popular term to pursue in our epistemological discussions on the Neolithic in Greek caves. While ritualism denotes the arena for special practices, symbolism would point to the more generic codified schema that pervades Neolithic cave people’s material identity. To speak simple and general beyond bibliographic citations, symbols are understood as the necessary systemic conceptualisations of any society, and would find expression by the means of material and corporeal representations indicating its roots in the past and tracing the origins of its traditions. In a broad sense however, the symbolic regime that is apt to ritualistic societies would not be competing to, but would rather be encompassing ritualism which is supposed to determine the aspect of the formalized embodied praxes. In that solidified sense rituals would not be indispensably linked to every symbolic manifestation, as for example to that expressed through the pottery or architecture craftsmanship. Judging from our long knowledge with Neolithic scholarship, the symbolic aspect usually refers to the semantic representation of distinguished Neolithic objects, landscapes or performances, as prescribed within systemic ideologies of culture and monolithic traditions that are supposedly established as solid blocks. The word is favorable for its mythological connotations that derive from the imaginaries of early archaeology’s discourses, so frequent-

145

ly enough it is implemented as verbalism that is alternative to ceremonialism to raise some emphasis on a vaguely non-functional aspect of Neolithic culture, rather than used as a fully comprehended term. In normative approaches such as those adopted by the still leading Greek Neolithic historic-cultural perspective, symbols would not imply short-scale individual or social revisions or objections created at meaningful situational contexts that occur inside the big non-negotiated ideological framework, and conveying instant interactions between humans and things. This last note is not a step to ignore, but could be indeed the first step for Greek Neolithic scholarship to move from the large-scale to the small-scale, by denying neither and accepting both. Drawing from established current theoretical trends, we suggest here that local scholarship should reconsider the systemic and dichotomized paradigm to be able to open the view to the meaningful and eventful side of the Neolithic world. Plain Neolithic wares or stone tools for example would be considered far from any symbolic value, as opposed to figurines, sophisticated ceramic vessels, and of course caves which are burdened with the universal principle of sacredness. The term is now called to transcend older simplifying dichotomies to become multisided and integrative on the same body and mind, material and idea, technology and style; to be inherent inside any economic, technological and functional value of things instead of lying on a separated area of people’s lives. Any rough plain pot therefore, although without any pattern, still carries some symbolic significance that derives from long-term aesthetic and technological traditions, but at the same time is launching a reconsideration of this principle in the short-term. Every morphological feature such as color, profile or surface treatment is selected out of various material choices available to establish or deny a solid link to basic symbolic metaphors through one’s personal mediation. Turning this conceptual holism for thingness on the Greek Neolithic cave studies, we should also transcend the large and the small divide for Neolithic symbolism for caves, in the sense that its axiomatic substance is placed under incessant reconsiderations and reassessments in the context of the everyday. This aspect is co-residing with the meaningfulness in the occasional and contingent context of the Neolithic cave, where the long-lived beliefs meet personal views, behaviors and situations which can have a dynamic impact on their reproduction. Greek Neolithic cave archaeology would therefore probably need to review the mechanistic implementation of symbolism and its implication within the austere monolithic dogmas to include situational properties next to the traditional conventions. Repositioning Symbolism And Ritualism Speculations have above explored the two fields separately with the aim to transcend the limits of both. The Neolithic cave is more than a functional locale for its natural advantages, or a ritual place for its darkness and fearful location, or a symbolic terrain for its metaphorical connotation

STELLA KATSAROU AND ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON in the local traditions. It is a source of interaction where all individual axioms and social traditions are present and at the same time activated and re-signified on the influence of instant thoughts and situational parameters which may indeed prove stronger than the cave’s long-lived metaphors. Normativism tends to forget how variable and unpredictable human choices can become on eventual time. It is true that the role of the Neolithic cavescape as a point of meeting, household, place of activities for small or big groups of people and individuals, exchange, manufacture, refuge, pen for the domesticates, storage place, or burial ground, is sourceful for long-standing metaphors on the social grounds. But interaction between Neolithic individuals and the cave multiplies, disseminates, enriches, and transforms these symbolic connotations to create new stories, memories and identities. These personal appropriations of the cavescape are primarily embodied experiences that are generated through sensual and corporeal contacts with the place, whether these consist of a simple view to the cave from afar or a sensed feeling of the cave from inside. The embodied aspect of culture, partly originated in Bourdieu’s habitus, has indeed gained a special epistemological focus within mainstream culture theories today, and has been called to play a major role in the various beyond-divide discourses. Fear for example, admiration, pain, dare, dream, excitement, imagination, personal moments lived in the cave, consist strong human presences that would take the cave’s significance far beyond the old typical questions on the domesticity, symbolism or ritualism of the site. Traditional disambiguation of its metaphors and representations which arrive at recognizing only the long-term status of the cave, are missing the broad range of individual contingencies that may occur in its very contexts: the entirety of all aspects in one’s moment of life. In this sense the “ritualism” question is absolutely outdated and urgently calls for a fresh look in transcendence of the modernist binarisms: beyond the standardized religious beliefs, secular life is already rich of ceremonies. In this concept the cave should need to include the perspective for stories of personal tribute, particular personal appropriations, strong feelings for the place (Hamilakis 2011), all of them present within any burial, domestic, storage or stockkeeping practice on the site. Storage for example would not be treated as a mechanistic physical praxis or an activity linked to religious fertility beliefs, but would instead be pertinent to the man’s feelings and behaviors involving sentimental liaisons with the very place. Seasonal or permanent keeping of the livestock inside the cave should not be considered as a flat functional activity either, but would also probably involve personal devotion to the place in the sense of a personal appropriation. Putting hearths in the cave is also not just a matter of somebody’s functional need for light, heat or cooking, independently of any feasting it may involve, but is first someone’s performance of feared or excited presence inside the place that can happen once or pursued continuously. All those experiences involve depositional and exhibition practices, repetitive or

146

unique, secular or religious, and generate small human stories and evocative perceptions of the cave in the mnemonic record of the individual and the community. Any visit to the cave is performative and re-enacting. The argument here is to support that reposition of the domestic, ritual or symbolic enquiry beyond the choice for one or the other term is absolutely necessary; each time the cave is lived in its entirety rather than as a unilateral perception. Repositioning Symbolism And Ritualism For Sarakenos Cave Sarakenos Cave has been recently emphasized as a Neolithic ritual site (Sampson and Mastrogiannopoulou 2013). The cave is located on the rocky cliffs bordering the Kopais basin –a former lake–, Boeotia, central Mainland, from the east, at a height of about 80 m from the surface of the basin (Sampson 2008). The opening dominates the landscape to Parnassos Mountains. The entrance is leaving abundant sunlight inside the single but spacious chamber filled with thick deposits forming a huge plateau. Big assemblages of Late Neolithic painted pottery from serving and eating/drinking tableware have been discovered throughout the entire area, suggesting wide production, circulation, distribution and consumption of ceramic vessels on site (Fig. 7.4); the variability of painted ornaments on the ceramic containers is further strengthening the aspect of symbolic complexity for the site. Besides other artifacts and tools, our particular attention has been attracted by the large number (more than 1,000 pieces) and style variability of figurines (Orphanidis 2008). The cave was long before distinguished for its figurines. Compared to other Greek Neolithic caves, such as Skoteini (Orphanidis and Sampson 1993, 202-14), Theopetra (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000, 198-200), Corycian Antron (Touchais 1981, 154-8) and Franchthi (Talalay 1993), the material from Sarakenos has so far included new types of figurines, particularly representing seated males, and even some large-scale statuettes as deduced by sizeable head fragments (Fig. 7.5). Most figurines though belong to standardized types. Stratigraphic records show that most of them are found in or next to hearth and ash contexts or on floors, and were deposited together with abundant coarse and decorated pottery and animal bones, sometimes including also scoop vessels and deer antlers. As automatic generalizations from ostensible forms to ritual norms and generic symbolisms are here severely questioned, we want to reset the framework to go beyond the principles and explore more site-, material- and contextspecific meanings for the Sarakenos Cave. Our primary tools to start with are taxonomic and stratigraphic in terms of hearths, burnings, and figurines, painted pottery, unusual containers, and animal offerings. Here below we cite selected contextual data from the Sarakenos Cave (Sampson 2008), in order to demonstrate an example of the rich contexts, and explore the perspectives of reassessing the dichotomic conclusion.

PERSPECTIVES OF SYMBOLISM AND RITUALISM FOR THE LATE NEOLITHIC COMMUNITIES AT SARAKENOS CAVE, BOEOTIA In Trench A, Level 6, sq. 2, the lower parts of a female and an animal figurine with tail were deposited together with plethora of Late Neolithic pottery, stone implements, spindle whorls, beads and pendants, in a plain earth context. In Level 7, a clay human figurine was lying next to a scoop vessel fragment and amidst pieces of matt-painted pottery. In Level 8, sq. 3, more fragments from scoop vessels which were decorated with incised lines and dotted filling were placed in plain earth; in sq. 8, the head of a clay figurine with indication of earings was located inside stone debris containing some pieces of charcoal, together with Late Neolithic II pattern burnished ware and one part of a scoop vessel with incised zigzag bands and dotted filling; in sq. 9, a part of a similar scoop was found together with monochrome pottery, rolled rims, pattern burnished and bichrome red/black-on-light ware inside the same stone debris deposit; in sq. 15, a clay human figurine leg, and two fragments of animal figurines were deposited in a plain earth. In Level 9, sq. 4, the head of a Late Neolithic II animal figurine was found arranged together with bovine bones on a gravel floor; in sq. 5, a fragmented head from a human clay figurine was lying inside the ashes of a thick hearth that was possibly associated with a stone structure; in sq. 11, a long-necked human clay figurine was found. In Level 10, sq. 11, a marble standing female, a fragmented clay head with indication of hairdo, and a long-necked figurine were deposited within a thick and large hearth and ash layer together with Late Neolithic I painted ceramic fragments. In Level 11, sq. 14, a stylized clay figurine has been found in burnings from a large hearth. In Trench C, Level 10, sq. 3, the upper part of a longnecked figurine was collected from damp soil with stones. In Level 12, sqs 1-2, a clay female figurine in a standing posture and another clay long-necked fragment of a head were found in the context of a hearth. In Layer 14, sq. 1, part of a long-necked human figurine was collected together with bone implements and large quantity of pottery from another hearth. In Layer 15, sq. 1, the head and torso of a Late Neolithic female clay figurine featuring hairdo and clothing indications have again been placed in a hearth context. In Trench D, east and north at 0.60 m. of depth, a concentration of about 300 figurines of different types, some considerably sizeable, was found in association with deer antlers together with red polished monochromes of Late Neolithic II. The context extends over a clay floor mixed with ash, which lies in the wider area of two clay pits filled with stones, ash and more fragments of figurines (Fig. 7.6). In Trench E, Level 10, sqs. 10, 15, a scoop vessel was found intact next to two fragments of figurines and a headless marble figurine; in sqs. 17-18 and 23-24, many fragments of figurines occurred with Late Neolithic I painted pottery on a floor which comprised of hearth and stones; in sqs. 28-29, one painted head fragment from a clay figurine comes from a hearth, and another one from a bigger clay statuette was found in sq. 32. In Trench Z, sqs.

147

7-8, depth 0.80 m, several fragments of figurines were deposited on the floor underlying an ash hearth. More figurines come from sqs. 13-16, deposited together with a small intact clay vessel. The above records testify to several concrete episodes of human activity inside the Sarakenos Cave throughout the Late Neolithic I and II, where figurines have been deposited together with containers, deer antlers, small artifacts and food remains. Most figurines occur within hearths, on floors or next to pits. Some episodes in Late Neolithic II at Sarakenos also involve deposition of large, could be even very large, assemblages of figurines mixed with faunal remains. The events of hearths and figurine-plus-paintedpottery deposition occur repeatedly and extendedly in the cave, synchronously for some groups inside its spacious chamber, and in subsequent episodes, but along a chronological period that extends throughout the entire 5th millennium B.C.. On the above accounts Sarakenos Cave is admittedly a very special site, also an advantageous cave in the sense that it would enable us create verbalistic narratives on impressive rituals that Neolithic people were supposed to hold inside the cave adequately accompanied with stories on the deposition of worship statuettes. The Neolithic myth is so easy to construct, as was shown by the worldwide publicity that Alepotrypa Cave, South Peloponnese, for example has acquired as soon as it was claimed to have inspired the ancient legend of the Hade’s Underworld on the account of its content of Neolithic burials and sophisticated artifacts. As we have however retained the ritual aspect away from the terrain of religious belief and deity worship, and the symbolic aspect from the regime of systemic representation, we open here the perspective of a rich rather than a sterile ordinary life, a life that is performed as a whole of ideals, senses, thoughtfulness and praxes. We do not need to devise some specific ritual and religious setting, feasting event or some particular worship for the Sarakenos dwellers. Their ordinary acts would have equally involved deposition and manipulation of figurines and other implements with food-and-drink-sharing around a bonfire, why not in the course of their daily domestic, cooking, production and consumption activities. We would probably never find out what the figurines from Sarakenos stand for, how fire, animals, raw materials, crafts and products relate to them. This is a task that is depending on insurmountable restraints for preliterary societies, and more than that, it is actually of no use. Symbolism however of these objects should not be evoked as representational to align with present preconceived categories of deity cult. Instead these materialities may be regarded as carrying situational symbols, as being pervasive and interacting to stand one for the other and for many others, including even their absence for their presence. We should be ready to suspect that figurines, pots and all other material stuff in the Sarakenos Cave may be remediated with

STELLA KATSAROU AND ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON different meanings by different people in every new context. Even though they derive from a long-tern tradition of performances at this certain locale, which congregate the mnemonic volume, history and heritage of the site for the subsequent communities, all significances are subject to fluidity, and interactions are present in every event to generate new meanings in people’s minds. This meaningful perspective should be placed within commonplace moments in the cave, moments of everyday life, worries, fears, pains, sentiments, alliances and rivalries, moments of light and darkness, of smells, of animals and humans, moments where all the ontologies are signified in memory, create history, and exist as experience and situational presences for the others. The ritual/ceremonial myth is lying just there, inside the every mundane moment of the cave, and should not be sought within any special context. In a methodological perspective, we need to practise thorough cross-evaluation of the depositional data to trace long-term historic axioms of the site and situational deviations. The superficial description of the statigraphic se-

148

quence is not adequate to see the stories beyond date, and explore the extent, depth and density of interactions that lie beyond these descriptive morphologies that are easily explained as “ceremonial” by the old definition. Our enquiry should therefore assume Neolithic life at the cave for its wholeness rather as fragmentary in pieces of ritualism and pieces of secularism. It is to this target that depositional change, events of feasting, the complexity of morphologies, gender, skill, crafts, exchange and subsistence should be addressed. It is as a solid unit that the cave is enacted in the social and individual memory of its residents, and that new identities are produced throughout subsequent generations as a response to dynamic agencies. It is in the context of any moment of the day that an evocative personal re-enactment of the surrounding material stuff occurs while some identities and meanings are not performed, not represented, not practiced, not chosen. To return to the initial question set at the start of this paper: finally the Sarakenos Cave is not a ritual neither a domestic place of the Neolithic, it is a fully sensed locale, a host of full life stories.

PERSPECTIVES OF SYMBOLISM AND RITUALISM FOR THE LATE NEOLITHIC COMMUNITIES AT SARAKENOS CAVE, BOEOTIA Kyparissi-Apostlika, N. 2000. “The Neolithic Period at Theopetra,” in Theopetra Cave, 12 Years of Excavations and Research, N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., Athens, pp. 181-234.

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

Kyriakidis, E. ed. 2007. The Archaeology of Ritual, Los Angeles.

Dobres M-A. and Chr. R. Hoffman. 1999. The Social Dynamics of Technology. Practice, Politics and World Views, Washington and London.

Lambert, N. 1981. La grotte préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique). Missions 1968-1978. Paris. Lesure, R. G. 2011. Interpreting Ancient Figurines: Context, Comparison, and Prehistoric Art, Cambridge University Press.

Gimbutas, M. 1989. “Figurines and Cult Equipment. Their Role in the Reconstruction of Neolithic Religion,” in Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 B.C., M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku, eds., (Monumenta Archaeologica 14), Los Angeles, pp. 171-227.

Mari, Α. 2001. H Nεολιθική Εποχή στο Σαρωνικό. Μαρτυρίες για τη Χρήση του Σπηλαίου του Ευρυπίδη στην Σαλαμίνα με βάση την Κεραμική της Νεότερης και Τελικής Νεολιθικής, Ph,D. diss, University of Thessaloniki.

Halstead, P. 2004. “Farming and Feasting in the Neolithic of Greece: The Ecological Context of Fighting with Food,” DocPraeh XXXI, pp. 151-161.

Moyes, H. ed. 2012. Sacred Darkness. A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves, University Press of Colorado.

Hamilakis, Y. 2008. “Time, Performance, and the Production of a Mnemonic Record: From Feasting to an Archaeology of Eating and Drinking,” in DAIS: The Aegean Feast, L. Hitchcock, R. Laffineur and J. Crowley, eds., (Aegaeum 29), University of Liège and University of Texas at Austin, Liège, pp. 3-20.

Nanoglou, S. .2009. “Representing People, Constituting Worlds: Multiple ‘Neolithics’ in the Southern Balkans,” DocPraeh XXXVI, pp. 283-297. Orphanidis, L. and A. Sampson. 1993. “Eιδώλια και Ειδωλοπλαστική,” in Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το Σπήλαιο, ο Οικισμός, το Νεκροταφείο, A. Σάμψων, ed., Athens, pp. 202-218.

______. 2011. “Archaeologies of the senses,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, T. Insoll, ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 208-225.

Orphanidis, L. 2008. “The Figurines of Sarakenos Cave at Acraephnion,” in The Sarakenos Cave, at Akraiphnion, Boeotia, Greece, A. Sampson, ed., Athens, pp. 401-409.

Hayden, B. 2001. “Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power, M. Dietler and B. Hayden, eds., Washington D.C., pp. 23-64.

Papa, M., P. Halstead, K. Kotsakis, and D. Urem-Kotsou. 2004. “Evidence for Large-Scale Feasting at Late Neolithic Makrygialos, N. Greece,” in Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, P. Halstead and J. Barett, eds., Oxford, pp. 16-44.

Karali, L., F. Mavridis and L. Kormazopoulou. 2006. “Σπήλαιο Λεονταρίου Υμηττού Αττικής: Ένα Πετρώδες και Ορεινό Περιβάλλον. Προκαταρκτικά Στοιχεία για την Έρευνα των Ετών 2003-2005,” AAA 39, pp. 31-43.

Papathanasopoulos, G. A. ed. 1996. Neolithic Culture in Greece, Athens, Museum of Cycladic Art. ______.ed. 2011. To Αλεπότρυπα, Athens.

Kaznesi, A. and S. Katsarou 1999-2001. “Νεολιθική Κεραμική από την Κουβελέικη Σπηλιά Β, Αλεποχωρίου Λακωνίας,” AAA 32-34, pp. 27-36.

Nεολιθικό

Δυρό.

Σπήλαιο

Perlès, C. 1992. “Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece,” JMA 5, pp. 115-164.

Katsarou-Tzeveleki, S. 2008. “Early Neolithic Weavers Paint. Gioura Red Painted Patterns as Markers of Local Group's Identity,” in The Cave of Cyclops on the Island of Gioura, Greece, A. Sampson, ed., (INSTAP Academic Press), Philadelpheia.

Perlès, C. and K. D. Vitelli. 1999. “Craft Spesialisation in the Neolithic of Greece,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Hastead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 96-107. Phelps, B. 2004. The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece, (BAR Int. S 1259), Oxford.

Koumouzelis, M. 1989. “Κεραμική από την Κουβελέϊκη Σπηλιά Α, Αλεποχωρίου, Λακωνίας,” AAA 22, pp. 143160.

Sampson, A. ed. 1993. Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το Σπήλαιο, ο Οικισμός, το Νεκροταφείο, Athens.

149

STELLA KATSAROU AND ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON ______.ed. 2008. The Sarakenos Cave, at Akraiphnion, Boeotia, Greece, Athens.

Theocharis, D. 1973. Nεολιθική Ελλάς, Athens. Tomkins, P. 2009. “Domesticity by Default. Ritual, Ritualization and Cave-Use in the Neolithic Aegean,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28:125-153.

Sampson, A. and V. Mastrogiannopoulou. 2013. “Late Neolithic Traditions: New Evidence from the Cave of Sarakenos, Kopais,” in Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Later Neolithic Stages (ca. 5000/48003200/3000 B.C.), S. Dietz, F. Mavridis, Ž. Tankosić and T. Takaoğluin, eds., in press.

Touchais, G. 1981. “Le Matériel Néolithique,” in L’Antre Corycien, École Française d'Athènes, ed., (BCH Supl. 7), pp. 95-172.

Souvatzi, S. 2008. A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach, Cambridge.

Trantalidou, K., E. Belegrinou, and N. Andreasen 2010. “Pastoral Societies in the Southern Balkan Peninsula: The Evidence from Caves Occupied During the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic Era". Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10:295-320.

Stratouli, G. 2007. “Tracing the Ionian Neolithic: The Contribution of Recent Excavations in Drakaina Cave, Poros, Kephalonia,” in Prehistoric Corfu and its Adjacent Areas. Problems – Perspectives, G. ArvanitouMetallinou, ed., Corfu, pp. 105-126.

Vitelli, K. D. 1993. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery, I: Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2, (Franchthi Fascile 8), Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Talalay, L. E. 1993. Deities, Dolls and Devices. Neolithic Figurines from Franchthi Cave, Greece, (Francthi Fascile 9), Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Zachos, K. 1999. “Zas Cave on Naxos and the Role of Caves in the Aegean Late Neolithic”, in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2), Sheffield, pp. 153-163.

150

PERSPECTIVES OF SYMBOLISM AND RITUALISM FOR THE LATE NEOLITHIC COMMUNITIES AT SARAKENOS CAVE, BOEOTIA

Figure 7.3. Middle Neolithic red-on-white painted vase with canvas pattern; Cyclops Cave, Gioura, North Sporades.

Figure 7.1. Late Neolithic pithos relief showing a male and a female figure; Skoteini Cave, Euboea.

Figure 7.2. Late Neolithic scoop; Skoteini Cave, Euboea.

151

STELLA KATSAROU AND ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Figure 7.4. Various Middle and Late Neolithic painted ceramic fragments; Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia.

Figure 7.5. Late Neolithic figurine fragments; Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia.  

Figure7.6. Assemblage of LN II figurines found together with deer antlers at Trench D; Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia.

152

 

PERSPECTIVES OF SYMBOLISM AND RITUALISM FOR THE LATE NEOLITHIC COMMUNITIES AT SARAKENOS CAVE, BOEOTIA

PART III: Cretan Caves

  153

154

THE USES OF CAVES IN MINOAN CRETE: A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS uses is provided by the small Miamou Cave (see Taramelli 1897, 291-296, figs. 5-6; Nilsson 1950, 53-54; Faure 1964, 52-53). The collapse of the ceiling at the Arkalochori Cave, probably at the end of Late Minoan IA period, constitutes an unforseen change to the morphology in connection with the use of the space, brought about by geological causes (see Marinatos 1935a, 218).

8 The Uses Of Caves In Minoan Crete: A Diachronic Analysis Lefteris Platon

The Study Of Cretan Caves

Introduction

The above observations may to a certain extent explain the perplexity of most scholars when confronted with the question of function - and more generally the meaning of Cretan caves, at least during Prehistoric times, when philological testimony is almost totally absent, with the exception of the probable identification of the “Cave of the Nymphs” with the sanctuary of the birth goddess Eileithyia at Amnissos [Amnissos Cave (Cave of Eileithyia)]. The latter is referred to on Linear B tablets at Knossos (see Tyree 1974, 108 and n. 26; Rutkowski 1986, 64; Faure 1996, 59), while for the possible identification of this cave with the “Σπέος της Ειλειθυίης” (“Cave of Eileithyia”) in Homer (see also Nilsson 1950, 58)]. Later factors introduced by the activities of contemporary humans aggravate the situation. One such activity is the renewed disturbance, mainly during the past century, of old caves, either intentionally through occasional or systematic looting (for a characteristic case of systematic looting of caves in a wider area, see Platon 1961, 224), or unintentionally during a final use that is usually quite temporary. Additional problems were caused during the same time period by the absence of proper excavation inside a number of caves. This was almost always accompanied by inadequate archaeological publication of their contents (concerning this topic, see also Rutkowski 1986, 11). Today, apart from a detailed account of the excavation data, competent scientific publication would in principle presuppose the complete description not only of the geomorphology of the interior of the particular karstic formation, but also of its wider geological context as well as the indispensable archaeological and environmental studies of the finds. Finally, the picture should be complemented by archaeological - at least surface - studies of the immediate environment of the caves, and of the wider cultural context within which these sites functioned in Antiquity. Such studies could provide answers to questions concerning the accessibility of the caves, but also yield answers to their likely proximity to burial grounds, settlements, agricultural/livestock-rearing zones, or even areas for other types of economic exploitation. The traditional archaeological study of Cretan caves has mainly focused on one very particular use and therefore particularly difficult in terms of its theoretical approach - use: a rather small number of caves functioned as cult places [see the chief overviews by Faure 1964, 81-197, 1985, 1996; Tyree 1974; 2001; Watrous 1996; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, while significant chapters on cave cults have been included in more general works concerning Minoan religion, see Nilsson 1950, 53-68; Rutkowski 1986, 46-71, 200-201; Marinatos 1993, 123-126, as well as the older studies by Nikolaos Platon (1930) and Spyridon Marinatos (1941)].

The great number and the topographical and morphological variety of caves and rockshelters in Crete constituted the basic reasons for the various uses made of them by the inhabitants of the island, and this as early as the Neolithic period (for a good overview of the archaeological data up to the beginning of the 1960s, see Faure 1964). The purely archaeological data illustrate over their long existence, how caves often have more than one use that is in harmony with the needs on the practical and the ideological level of each set of users. Caves employed at one time for burials, in and to a greater or lesser extent organized fashion, appear to have been used, at some other point in time, as shelters or cult places (Faure 1964, 46, n. 7; Tyree 1974, 8, 26-27, 53-54). In other cases, caves or rockshelters, which originally had been used as seasonal habitations, were transformed into cult places or burial grounds (Pendlebury, Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1935-1936, 23; Nilsson 1950, 56, 60; Faure 1964, 52-53; Tyree 1974, 10; Sakellarakis 1985, 16; Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976, 211-212; Tzedakis and Gavrilaki 1995, 893; Faure 1996, 38). It appears probable that the use of caves was not fixed, but in a state of long term transformation in relationship to changing needs of the communities that resorted to their use. It is generally known that caves and karstic formations were used from the most distant Antiquity until our times for various human activities. However, the character and temporal span of specific past activities inside these natural shelters are particularly difficult to trace today. The main difficulty stems from the diachronic nature of cave use. Due to their almost unchanging shape (as far as the Human Era is concerned), caves offered to large and small communities stable and safe space with an “architectural” function that were ready to answer various needs according to circumstance. To this same characteristic, the lack of physical change to the shape of caves is partially due to the absence, in the majority of cases, of substantial archaeological stratification. Human intervention on interior space, regardless of period, and season, is either nonexistent or negligible. It is likewise known that the archaeological stratification is created chiefly through the alteration to or recreation of human structures, usually preceded by a rearrangement of the traces of previous uses of the space. Exceptions include some layers identifiable by excavation, which have been conserved through geological changes; these, however, due to the limited scope of human life, constitute a rather unusual phenomenon. A case of stratigraphic distinction between two successive, and probably different,

155

LEFTERIS PLATON the cave cult. Even if Watrous claims that cult in caves and in peak sanctuaries present similar characteristics, the totally different topographical position of the two types of sanctuaries cannot be studied as anything but the result of a conscious choice on the part of the worshippers in connection with the type of cult or the character of the worshipped deity (see Watrous 1996, 92-96). There is no doubt about the chthonic nature of the latter. The ritual placing of offerings in the cracks of stalagmites, in crevices in the rock, and in physical depressions and niches in the walls of Minoan caves (Tyree 1974, 91-92, 180-182), and the observed isolation of dark and inaccessible areas in view of their probable use as holiest-of-holies (Platon 1930, 164-165; Tyree 2001, 42-43). All these points are elements that simply confirm this logical hypothesis. The great significance of the chthonic dimension in Minoan cult is supported by both the performing of libations, and the deposition of offerings in wells, or in sources at the boundaries of cemeteries and settlements, and finally by the probable imitation of similar features in architectonic form within the palatial complexes that especially can be observed during the Neo-Palatial period (Marinatos 1941, 130). One step further is taken by Thodoris Iliopoulos (1988-1989), who basically equates the chthonic dimension of cult with the cult of the dead.

This use was connected to mythological and contemporary folk traditions, for which there also exists, apart from the archaeological data, epigraphic, and other philological testimonies. However, the “transportation” of the religious significance which some of the caves have undergone, mainly during the Historical period, back to functions dating to previous phases, even if probable, remains in quite a few cases to this day unsubstantiated (characteristic cases include Faure 1996, 21-22, 39-41, 75-77, 109-110, 124-125, 131-134). Characteristic are the efforts of scholars to determine some criteria, which would allow recognizing cult caves (Faure 1985, 13; 1996, 16). However, the systematic study of specific instances showed that these criteria are not generally valid, all the more so when the character of the cult itself differs over time and by geographical unit. Given the fact that the number of certain Minoan cult caves available for examination is exceptionally small [out of a total of 3320 caves and related karstic formations in Crete (Platakis 1975), Loeta Tyree (1974, 167) classifies only 19 as cult caves, while Bogdan Rutkowski (1986, 47-50) arrives at 16 and Paul Faure (1996, 21-154) catalogues as ritual 53 Cretan caves, most of which provide adequate evidence for cult only in the Historical period], every attempt to create a hypothetical model remains statistically arbitrary.

The morphological variety of caves employed for cult in Palatial times does not permit the formulation of criteria relative to the choices already made (Tyree 1974, 6-7, 169). It may simply be suggested that in some cases features such as the presence of stalagmites [Platon 1930, 165-166; 1970, 96-98; Rutkowski 1986, 47, on the contrary, Martin P. Nilsson (Nilsson 1950, 56-57) does not accept that geomorphological criteria played a significant role in the choice of cult caves], a labyrinthine layout or in particular during Palatial times the visibility of the cave entrance over long distance, or from some particular point within the urban agglomeration, played a role (Evans 1921-1935, I, 1921, 163; Tyree 2001, 40-41).

The Uses Of Cretan Caves Even if the today prevalent opinion regarding the use of caves in Crete during the Neolithic period states that they were sometimes employed for habitation, sometimes for burial (Watrous 1994, 700-701, 703, 734 and n. 298), a parallel function for some of them as sites of limited ritual activity should not be excluded (Tyree 1974, 65; 2001, 39-40; van Leuven 1981, 13; Rutkowski 1986, 65-67; Zois 1991, 37, for the opposite view see Faure 1996, 207208). Moreover, burial ritual is closely related to the religious conceptions of a community. Therefore, habitation sites were among others employed in Prehistoric times for the celebration of cults to supernatural forces. Despite the fact that some scholars have ventured to see in these early uses for burial or habitation of the Cretan caves, the birth of the cave cult (Marinatos 1941, 130; Nilsson 1950, 5657; Tyree 1974, 114; Zois 1973, 125), the consolidation as a systematically organized activity appears to be connected to a greater extent with the development of a specific theological system, which was completed with the creation of the first city states. Livingstone Vance Watrous (1996, 75-81) is more or less of the same opinion. He believes, however, that the systematization of cult in extra urban sanctuaries is one of the factors leading to state formation. It has been correctly noted that a systematic ritual use of Cretan caves is encountered for the first time at the beginning of the Middle Minoan period in, for example, the Kamares Cave, the Psychro Cave, the Skoteino Cave and the Stravomyti Cave. At approximately the same time that these sanctuaries were established another type of sanctuaries were founded on the peaks of mountains. These were probably for a cult of a different character, but certainly, nevertheless, as a complement to

A far more difficult task involves an attempt to identify the specific deities or their particular aspects of worship in caves during Minoan times (for a good overview of the range of opinions, see Watrous 1996, 23-25). This issue is connected with the very nature of the cult. We have only sparse indications available to base a more accurate reconstruction of these issues. The main issue is the nature of the offerings (Tyree 1974, 169-178). The most recent analysis of the types and character of the offerings in Cretan peak sanctuaries, open-air sanctuaries, and caves are provided by Watrous (1996, 81-92), since the ritual equipment proper (sacred symbols such as horns of consecration and double axes, and probable bases, or altars, offering tables and libation vases, lamps, and vessels for solid offerings) is common to all categories of Minoan sanctuaries. Among the categories of offerings the bronze figurines depicting votaries stand apart since they are rather unusual in other types of sanctuaries, and it is necessary to note that the large concentrations of dedicated double axes are only confined to two caves: the Arkalochori Cave and the Psychro Cave. Concerning the former,

156

THE USES OF CAVES IN MINOAN CRETE: A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS the particular character is related to a greater degree to the material than to the type of offering. This is something that could only lead to one hypothesis concerning a differentiated social status of the dedicator (Watrous 1996, 80; Tyree 2001, 42). On the other hand, the concentrations of metal imitations of symbols and weapons confirms the mass deposition of precious offerings that were, most probably by groups, commissioned by specific centers of politico economic power. In Palatial Crete this can only be the palaces themselves. Nannó Marinatos (1993, 125) believes that the Arkalochori Cave was patronized by a corporate group of warriors or priests, for whom the specific offerings constituted a type of insignia dignitatis.

ticular, and based mainly on the finds from the Kamares Cave, it has been suggested that the cult in caves had the main purpose of invoking the deity to protect and enhance the livestock raising and agricultural productivity (Tyree 1974, 70, 180; Rutkowski 1986, 63). For the PostPalatial period a change has been noted regarding preferences in terms of place and type of new cult caves. In this period it appears that a proclivity for shallow open caves exists, which are usually characterized as “rockshelters”, and no attention is paid to the visibility factor over large distances (Tyree 2001, 48-49). Finally, a reduction is noted in the level of formality of the cult in comparison with the Neo-Palatial period, and a greater variety in the types of offerings, particularly in bronze (Tyree 2001, 4849). The find’s fragmentary conditions, frequently generates uncertainties regarding their ritual use during Prehistoric times. In the case of the celebrated “Idaean Antron”, it has not to date been possible to determine with certainty the beginnings of the cult. Faure (1996, 95), Watrous (1996, 58 and n. 8), and Tyree (2001, 40 and n. 10), in their most recent works, place the beginnings of the cult in the Idaean Cave at 2000 B.C., following the opinion of Antonis Vasilakis (1990, 15-17). The last excavator of the cave, however, Yannis Sakellarakis, acknowledged that the oldest archaeological remains attesting to a use of the cave as a sanctuary belong to the Middle Minoan III (see also Watrous 1994, 734, n. 298).

Even if the mass deposition of weapons has led some scholars to postulate the occupation of these caves by a specific deity with warrior attributes (Marinatos 1935a, 219-220; 1941, 134; Tyree 1974, 91, 97, 182; Rutkowski 1986, 65, contra Nilsson 1950, 74), it seems more likely that this ritual practice is connected with some particular circumstances or events and less with an entrenched character of the cult in these sites. Concerning the Arkalochori Cave in particular, it has been suggested that the deposits are connected to intense seismic activity or to a political crisis (see Marinatos 1935a, 219; 1935b, 254; Platon 1973, 253; Rethemiotakis 1999, 105-107). There are no clear archaeological indications concerning the modalities of the ritual ceremony and of its purpose inside caves. The absence of cult statues may be explained by a probable replacement by stalagmites and other physical formations (Platon 1930, 166-168; Rutkowski 1986, 50-52). Tyree, drawn in another direction, expresses the opinion that this fact suggests different means of communication between worshippers and divinities to that operating in the constructed sanctuaries. She proposes that, at least during the Palatial period (Middle Minoan II-Late Minoan I), one mode of communication with the divine was provided by ritual ecstasy (Tyree 2001, 42-44). This approach was aided by the dark isolated places considered by the same scholar to be “holiest-of holies” and hypothetically, by repetitious sounds, probable percussive. At any rate, the other ways of conducting cult in caves do not appear to differ from those that characterize cult in open-air sanctuaries. These probably include blood sacrifice, ritual meals, libations, and, of course, the ritual deposition of offerings (Tyree 2001, 45-46). Concerning the purposes of cult within caves, some hypotheses have been formulated, which are exclusively based on ethnographic parallels and lack, in the opinion of the present author, sufficient archaeological documentation (Watrous 1996, 89-92, 95-96).

Doubts have recently been also expressed in the bibliography for the well known “cultic” caves of Kamares and Arkalochori. In the first case (Dawkins and Laistner 1912-1913), several scholars note the difficulties involved in distinguishing ritual implements from offerings among the greater majority ceramic remains, part of which exhibit a clear connection with storage (Nilsson 1950, 66; Rutkowski 1986, 63). Indirect allusions to a probable alternative use of the Kamares Cave are made in a very recent forthcoming work concerning the caves in the region of Zakros, specifically the sites “Tis Ouranias to Froudi” and “Mavro Avlaki” (see Kopaka forthcoming; Manteli and Philippa forthcoming). Particularly in the first instance, the movable finds lead to an interpretation as non religious site, but their almost complete identity with those from the Kamares Cave generate justifiable doubts (see Kopaka 2003, 54-55, 58-64; 2011, 283284). The inaccessible position of the Kamares cave, however, at the foot of Mount Ida, far from every significant country settlement, the quality of some of the finds, and the fact that for the better part of the year it would have been impossible to live there since the site is snowed in, are all indicators, albeit with some reserve, in favor of a ritual use. Thus, the almost total absence of recognizable ritual equipment has been ascribed to the particular nature of the cave cult during the first period of its function (Middle Minoan) (Nilsson 1950, 66-67; Tyree 1974, 70-71, 169, 180).

Even scarcer are the indications of an evolution in cave cults during Minoan times (good overviews of the evolution of cave cults during the Minoan period are provided by Watrous 1996, 73-78, 97-100 and Tyree 2001, 40-49). For the Palatial period, observations have been made that has recognized a progressive tendency towards improved organisation of and greater formality in the rites that culminated in the Neo-Palatial phase (Watrous 1996, 97; Tyree 2001, 46). Concerning the earlier palaces in par-

Even more interesting is the case of the Arkalochori Cave, where the finds are more numerous than at any other Cretan cave (Hazzidakis 1912-1913; Marinatos 1934; 1935a; 1935b; 1962). The finds have been assigned to two different periods of use, which, given the chrono-

157

LEFTERIS PLATON logical gap between the two, could lead to supposing the absence of all connection. To the first belong mainly ceramic finds from the Early Minoan period and some stone tools and obsidians (Hazzidakis 1912-1913, 37-46; Marinatos 1935a, 218; 1935b, 251; 1962, 89). In the opinion of the first excavator, Joseph Hazzidakis, the cult in the cave had already begun in this period. This view has since been vigorously disputed (Hazzidakis 19121913, 46; Marinatos 1935b, 251; 1962, 89; Tyree 1974, 29; Rutkowski 1986, 66 and n. 108; Faure 1964, 52-53; 1996, 73; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 25, for a probable cultic use of the cave in Early Minoan times, see Platon 1970, 100; Watrous 1996, 57, n. 2). For the sacred character of the far more numerous and richer finds of the second period of use, dated by the excavators Spyridon Marinatos and Nikolaos Platon to the Middle Minoan IIILate Minoan I period (Marinatos 1935a, 218; Platon 1973, 273), there can be no doubts. The morphology of the cave, however, as well as the manner in which the offerings had been deposited - almost in masses, the one in close proximity to the next - led some scholars to propose alternative interpretations regarding the significance of the find. According to the first, proposed by Marinatos (1962), the cave was used for the cult of a Minoan deity with war like attributes and at the same time housed a metalworking installation for the purpose of producing offerings for the sanctuary [for an overview of these activities, see also Platon 1988, 320-321; this reading is rejected by Nanno Marinatos (1993, 125)]. This interpretation considers as given that the cave was, in reality, much more open, more akin to a rockshelter. The chief deposits were two, the one a small distance from the other, the first approximately in the middle of the cave, perhaps within an architectonically delineated space (altar?), which left, however, no traces. The second lies further north on the rock floor and close to the walls (Marinatos 1935a, 214-215; 1935b, 249-251; 1962, 89). Other finds are not mentioned with the exception of some Middle Minoan III sherds from common, unpainted vases, which were interpreted as vessels for the use of the personnel (priests?) and some Early Minoan sherds of Pyrgos and Vassiliki wares (Marinatos 1935a, 218; 1935b, 251; 1962, 89).

paid to an observation made by one of the excavators, Nikolaos Platon. He saw that on the stepped path that led up the side of the hill to the cave, hundreds of deposited conical cups were found - offerings of the faithful in the Late Minoan I period, that is, after the collapse of the ceiling of the cave (Platon 1970, 100; 1973, 253). The study of an unpublished typewritten paper by Platon, who kept the note books during the 1934 excavation (from 4 June to 7 July and from 31 October to 3 November 1934, when the main deposits were discovered), offer additional information on the excavation worthy of appraisal prior to formulating a definite answer to the question regarding the true meaning of the find. The more significant elements may be summarized as follows: 1. The main deposits of metal offerings were not two but four. One was placed in a small chamber with a low ceiling accessed by a steep path with stone steps beginning on the southwestern side of the hill. The path must have been somewhat posterior to the use of the deposit since stones in the upper part partly closed the mouth. In front of the entrance to the chamber was a rock, which supported the ceiling and a built wall, probably filling a similar supportive function. 2. The deposit of bronzes in this chamber had the same characteristics as the others and consisted of a 10 cm thick layer. At the entrance four Early Minoan vases without stratigraphical context and a small two handled spherical cup (Early Minoan IIA?) were discovered as well as many pieces of obsidian. A microscopic one handled Early Minoan vase was found in a hole at the back of the chamber. Moreover, beyond bronze offerings of the usual type, which also included disc shaped pieces of bronze that was identified by Marinatos as standardized units of raw material for the metal working “workshop” (“σόλοι”) (Marinatos 1934, 253; 1962, 89, 91-92), the chamber contained pottery characteristic of the Middle Minoan III-Late Minoan IA period, represented by two single spouted lamps, one handled cups of the “Vaphio” type and shallow cups with broad outward turned rim. 3. Outside the entrance of this deposit and on the access path thousands of conical cups were discovered, which compare with those from the house on Gypsades Hill at Knossos. They date to the Late Minoan I period. The same date can be applied to fragments of pithoi and other vases. 4. There is no evidence in the excavation for an altar, or another built structure at the center of the cave (Marinatos 1935a, 215; 1935b, 250; 1962, 89; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 25). In addition it appears that this deposit has suffered great disturbance, if possible, pillagers had removed the valuable objects before the excavation of 1934, and since fragments of Early Minoan vases were found among the bronze finds.

A second alternative interpretation of the find was recently proposed by Giorgos Rethemiotakis (1999, 105107; 2002, 64-65). He associates the “treasury” of metal objects with the recently nearby excavated Palace of Galatas, of which it is conjectured to be the property. According to this interpretation, the objects came from open-air sanctuaries and their concentration was due to a massive transfer to the palatial workshops with the purpose of recycling the materials of which they were made. Their discovery in the Arkalochori Cave is considered a more or less fortuitous fact that probably was the result of some political convulsion. This might have forced the local priesthood to hide precipitously this precious treasure in a safe hiding place until the crisis had passed. In this intelligent interpretation there exists, nonetheless, an arbitrary confession: that the only objects in the cave were the metal offerings, deposited all together in more or less the same moment. However, serious attention was not

On the basis of the above four points, the ritual use of the Arkalochori Cave cannot be doubted. It appears that the depositions of bronzes in four or more places took place in a ritual manner accompanied by ceramics but also by other objects (according to the 1934 excavation note books of Platon, inside the chamber, to which the ascent led, were found the terracotta head of an animal and a

158

THE USES OF CAVES IN MINOAN CRETE: A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS stone rubber, in the deposit with the small gold and silver axes a small faience vase, while along the steps of the ascent towards the small chamber, part of a terracotta animal and a fragment of a potter’s wheel). The continuation of cult in front of the (already collapsed?) cave in the years following immediately upon the depositions, now proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the dedication of thousands of conical cups, would make no sense, at least in the consciousness of the believers, if the area had not constituted a shrine in the past. Finally, the type and the find spot of some ceramic objects belonging to Early Minoan I and II strongly support the probability that the same space had been employed for cult in the Early Bronze Age.

draw conclusions regarding a probable social differentiation of the dead by grave type. The quality of publications and the state of conservation of the anthropological remains deter, likewise, from an even rudimentary description of the funerary rites employed for burials in caves. Antonis Zois has affirmed that during the Neolithic period burial was effected in the back and along the walls of caves (Zois 1991, 37). The more than a hundred skulls that were found during excavation of the best studied and published burial cave, Trapeza Lasithiou Cave, declare the usual practice to remove relics belonging to earlier burials, also encountered in graves in organized open-air cemeteries (Pendlebury, Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1935-1936, 18). Certainly, for the Hagios Haralambos Cave (Gerontomouri Cave) it has been affirmed that it was employed exclusively for secondary interment of skeletal remains and funerary gifts. These were brought there from their original, for the moment unidentified, place of open-air burial (Betancourt 2005, 449). Finally, regarding the criteria governing the choice of burial caves there does appear to have been a rule, even if shallow and low ceilinged cavities, unsuitable for any other use, are the most common found.

Despite the fact that of all the documented uses of caves in the Early Minoan period it is burial that tops the list in terms of absolute numbers, few in depth studies have appeared to date on this particular topic. In the main study Faure catalogues some 90 burial caves (Faure 1964, 6680, see also Nilsson 1950, 53-56 where the majority is located in eastern Crete). He defines the end of the 3 rd and of the 2nd millennium B.C. as the highpoints in the funerary use of caves. These periods were characterized by social transformation and instability, and, of course, the absence of a strong central administration (Faure 1964, 7273). The interments in caves appear chiefly to depend on the existence in the immediate neighbourhood of open-air settlements or on the attempt of certain social groups to bury their dead in a more economic way (Faure 1964, 7376). Regarding the character of these groups, little can be said with certainty without reference to comparative data relative to the wider cultural domain to which these would have belonged (Faure 1964, 73). For Zakros, for example, it has been suggested that the burials in caves during the Middle Minoan period are characteristic of some conservative or economically disadvantaged social groups (Manteli and Philippa forthcoming; Dawkins and Laistner 1912-1913). Something along those lines may, in the present case, be proposed on the basis of a comparison of the grave gifts with those of contemporary interments in open-air built tombs (on the built enclosures at Pezoules Kephala, see Platon 1967, 190-194; Platon, forthcoming). The finds, on the other hand, from the burial caves, Pyrgos Anopolis Cave (Xanthoudides 1918, 140-168) and Trapeza Lasithiou Cave (Pendlebury et al. 1935-1936, 25-128), are so impressive that it is difficult to claim that they represent groups of an analogous social position. In these cases, however, there is no comparative material in the wider area, while for the choice of the Trapeza Lasithiou Cave it cannot be excluded that other parameters played a role such as a tradition connected with some deeply rooted religious beliefs of the inhabitants.

A much more disputed use of Cretan caves during Prehistoric times is that of simple habitation. Zois rejects emphatically the probability that caves were used for permanent habitation, even in the Neolithic period (Zois 1973, 83, 119, 187, 225-226). He also appears largely to be followed by Adamantios Sampson in a more general overview of caves in Greece (Sampson 1985, 42-43). Yet both admit a periodic - more episodically than regularly repeated - use of caves by shepherds, hunters, or fugitives. Faure that accepts the periodic nature as chief characteristics of cave use as habitations in times of peace (Faure 1964, 46-49) distinguishes six different circumstances (Faure 1964, 46, 59-66): 1. As temporary housing for squatters 2. For stabling of animals 3. For collecting water 4. As temporary accommodation for shepherds 5. For storage of various agricultural products 6. As shelter for refugees (this final use was the most common from Antiquity to the present, see Faure 1964, 59-66; 1969). A more permanent, but of supplementary character, habitation use of some caves is suggested by Zois for the Magasas Cave, Sphoungaras Cave, Katsambas Cave, and Miamou Cave from the Neolithic period (Zois 1973, 88, 106-107, 132, 182). In these cases, however, the caves are in direct connection with open-air habitations and appear to have had auxiliary uses either as storage for produce or as housing for special activities such as food production, or, finally, as stabling of domestic animals belonging to the inhabitants of the adjoining houses. Sampson (1985, 44) adds yet another probable, entirely occasional, use of caves: as refuge for neighboring inhabitants of these areas in times of calamity, epidemics, or invasions. It is worthy of note that analogous uses of Cretan caves have been observed for later periods, lasting

The burial of the dead in caves was effected either in simple pits - in rare cases in cists constructed from rough stones (such a case is mentioned for Zakros, see Hogarth 1900-1901, 143) - or in burial pithoi and clay larnakes. The hypothetical, yet probable, existence of wooden larnakes, but also the general disturbance of caves due to the factors examined above, does not at present allow us to

159

LEFTERIS PLATON to the present day.

Marilena Kanetaki (forthcoming) believes that one of them may be identified with “Burial Cave A”, reexamined by Platon, east of “Spiliara”. The British scholar, however, refers to a small hollow cavity, while the particular cave resembles more a long and narrow tunnel. The one cave excavated by Hogarth, on the north slope of the Minoan settlement, must, on the basis of its shape and of the few ceramics it contained, have been employed for burials, even if no traces of human bones came to light. The second, inside the gorge, ca. three miles from its southern (coastal) entrance was quite larger and contained five disturbed burials in cists built of rough stones. The illustrated pottery from both caves falls easily into the Early Minoan IIA period (Hogarth 1900-1901, fig. 52).

The interventions of architectural character by man at the cave entrances and within such caves are restricted to the construction of low protective walls for the enclosure of livestock (Sampson 1985, 44), of supporting walls for leveling of the surface in view of manufacturing, or storage activities, to the configuration of accesses, and interior pebble or earth covered floors for similar purposes, and to the construction of fireplaces for food preparation. The minimal and temporary natures of these interventions are elements that underline the seasonal character of the use of caves as habitations, at least during the Bronze Age. The innate difficulties involved in the functional determination of Minoan caves, as described above, are further compounded by an additional factor: the insufficiency of archaeological research. It is a question of the possibilities for a basic functional differentiation in connection with the varying chronological or geographical distribution of examples available for analysis. The ongoing systematic study of excavation findings made by Nikolaos Platon in caves within the wider Zakros area (the study of the research by Platon in caves, deposits, and open-air built tombs in the wider area of the Minoan settlement at Zakros is included in the first volume of the final publication of the site, forthcoming in the series of publications of the Archaeological Society of Athens) offers the opportunity for an all embracing examination of a geographically - and in part chronologically - well defined example of cave use in Minoan times.

Of the caves examined by Platon only one produced undisturbed burials of the Early Minoan period. This cave, called Dog Cave, is situated low down on the eastern rock face and some 300 m from the southern entrance of the gorge (Platon 1963, 187-188; Zois 1991, 39-40, further, unpublished, data derive from information contained in the excavation note books). It is a small uphill cavity with two entrances and narrow branched off passage ways (Fig. 8.1). The six burials that came to light had been placed close to each other at various points along the length of the two passage ways of the cave, and had been covered with earth and mounds of large and small stones. In one case, two burials had been placed in the same spot, one on top of the other. The finds, almost exclusively ceramics represent characteristic styles of the Early Bronze Age dated to Early Minoan IIA and IIB. The contents of the graves betray a somewhat differentiated approach to the burial rites. Three graves had received 1-2 vases, where one was unaccompanied, while the richest contained the well known magnificent schist pyxis with the handle of the lid in the shape of a dog and four vases decorated in the incised gray ware style of eastern Crete and in the Vasiliki ware style. Finally, a surface find of one fragment of a pithos with rope decoration indicates perhaps use of the site for a pithos burial at a later date (Middle Minoan?).

At present time, ritual use has only been suggested for two caves of all the caves in the Zakros area (concerning the Pelekita Cave, between the Bays of Zakros and Karoumes, see Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 33-34). The first, in the location “Riza” on the abrupt slope that closes off at the northern end of Kato Zakros Valley where the Minoan settlement was built consists of one imposing but in reality shallow, vaulted concavity also known as “Spiliara”. Its identification as cult cave - a type of temple (?) - on a purely morphological and topographical basis remains to this day entirely hypothetical (Faure 1996, 163-164). The second is the narrow and dark Mavro Avlaki Cave, named after a small fjord located immediately to the south of the Bay of Zakros (Platon 1962, 167-168; 1970, 98). The finds of the cave indicate, as we shall see, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it was employed primarily for burials, and a synchronous ritual use has to be considered rather irreconcilable.

The graves in shallow and rather small cavities in the gorge continued into the Middle Minoan period (Platon 1963, 187; 1964, 167). At a small distance from the Dog Cave, but at a much greater height on the western rock face, a small burial cave was examined and found to have been substantially disturbed at an early date (Platon 1972, 190-192, information not published in the preliminary report derives from the excavation note books). One of the latest graves in a decorated Late Minoan I pithamphora had been placed on a small constructed terrace in front of the entrance to the cavity. The other chronologically earlier graves had been thoroughly disturbed and were no longer in their original position. The scattered bones were abundant, while a large concentration of human teeth was noted at one point near the entrance. The gifts attest to a rather extensive period of use and included a number of stone vases, copious amounts of sherds from small vases of the Middle Minoan period, some with decoration, fragments of tripod cooking pots, carbon, and cores and

In his first exploration of the Zakros area, Platon noted that a large number of caves both on the abrupt rocky slopes which enclose the bay, and inside the gorge that unites the coastal zone with the interior, had been used for burial (Platon 1961, 224). The first excavator of the site, David George Hogarth, had already examined two of them, but today their identification remains difficult (Hogarth 1900-1901, 142-144).

160

THE USES OF CAVES IN MINOAN CRETE: A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS blades of obsidian. A small pithamphora, probably of Middle Minoan III date, found on the entrance terrace, did not contain a burial.

present author and Kanetaki, see also Platon 1961, 224) (Fig. 8.4) in connection with the rather appropriate formation for a habitation use (Fig. 8.5), render it likely that Cave A at Riza east of “Spiliara” was used as an auxiliary (storage?) space for some neighboring houses (a use such as this appears rather more common in the much earlier Neolithic period, Zois 1973, 88, 106-107, 132, 182; Faure 1964, 53).

The study of the material from the Mavro Avlaki Cave (Manteli and Philippa forthcoming) showed that the excavator had, in his preliminary report, incorrectly placed the period of use in one phase only (Early Minoan IIIMiddle Minoan IA) (Platon 1962, 167). This narrow cave - like a dark tunnel - had been used at two different times, Final Neolithic and Middle Minoan IB-Middle Minoan IIIA (Platon 1999, 674-675; Manteli and Philippa forthcoming). An even occasional use of this cave as a habitation (Zois 1991, 37), at least in the second phase, which coincides with the period of the first palaces in Crete, appears improbable due to its entirely unsuitable morphology (narrowness, particularly high humidity level, difficult access), as well as its position. The small fjord above this stony cavity (Mavro Avlaki) is known for the dangerous sea currents created within it. These currents prohibit not only its use as an anchorage but also the mere approach by any vessel (Fig. 8.2). A strong megalithic wall of unknown date, which appears to close off the ascent from the area of the cave up to the plateau above it (Platon 1962, 168; Zois 1991, 40-41) (Fig. 8.3) does not appear to belong to any building since it stretched out along the right hand side of the small bay (Nakasis and Tagonidou 1993, 23). Its use remains uncertain as a fortification for reasons already described above. A use of the cave for burials in the Middle Minoan period is documented in any case by the presence of scattered human bones and fragments of pithoi and larnakes (Platon 1962, 167). The interments, close to the entrance, were made either in pits or were simply covered with soil or finally, were placed in clay (or also wooden?) coffins (Manteli and Philippa forthcoming). The ceramic finds were chiefly funerary in nature, but indicate, as in open-air cemeteries, some manner of mortuary drinking ceremonies, or even grave-side meals. The presence of a large number of seashells inside the cave, (Platon 1962, 167; Zois 1991, 37) although it is possible to connect them with the burials, cannot be evaluated in absolute terms because they may be connected to a much later, even modern, use which left no other traces.

More problematic is the case of the Ourania Cave at the site “Tis Ouranias to Froudi” inside the Zakros Gorge (Platon 1962, 165-166; Kopaka 2003; Kopaka 2011). Here, in the front part, near the entrance, a low cross wall of rough stones had been built, while a supporting wall created something like a terrace. Most finds from the cave date to the Middle Minoan III-Late Minoan I period and consist of domestic pottery with an accent on storage, although stone and bronze tools are not lacking. A significant find is the discovery of a quantity of salt and grain as well as a number of horns of wild goat bearing clear marks of fire, which makes their use as torches likely. The absence of human bones and distinctively ritual objects (Kopaka 2011, 279) in connection with the existence of constructions, though rudimentary, makes it probable that the cave was employed as temporary accommodation - in all likelihood by men working in the region (Kopaka 2003, 55; 2011, 280). The site is, however, difficult of access and precipitous, features that do not favor the existence of a very well organized installation (Fig. 8.6). The most logical explanation is that it was for shepherds, who have used the cave until the present day as a stable for their herds (Faure 1964, 53; Kopaka 2003, 53, n. 1). A similar use, dated to the Final Neolithic, has en suggested for the “Spiliara” in the neighboring Bay of Karoumes (see Vokotopoulos 2000, 135). The discovery, however, in the immediate vicinity, on an artificial terrace, of a peculiar clay object, most probably employed in bee keeping [Davaras 1989, 2-4, Platon (1962, 166) believes it was used as a bellow, while Faure (1964, 78 and n. 2) interprets it as a utensil employed in funerary rituals], raises the probability that the Ourania Cave was used as seasonal accommodation for beekeepers (Kopaka forthcoming; 2011, 280). This would be in accordance with the vegetation in the area, since to this day the gorge is overgrown with thyme, which is a very good sustenance for bees.

Two of the caves in the Zakros area offer some indications that would rather place them in the category of occasional habitations than in the category of cult sites or burials. The first is named Cave A at Riza, east of “Spiliara” (Platon 1961, 224; 1962, 165; Kanetaki forthcoming). It is a long, narrow cave with a length of ca. 18 m. It has a double entrance and almost level floor. The sole finds from inside the cave are three pithoi and a few vases, probably of Middle Minoan III-Late Minoan I date. Among them were a small basin and a “milk jug”. In the 1962 preliminary report, Platon (1962, 165) places five burials(?) inside the cave, which according to the note books were, in fact, discovered on the terraces to its northwest, some 25 m lower than the entrance. The absence of human bones, the character of the ceramic finds and the position of some building remains on the terrace immediately below that of the entrance (inspection by the

Conclusions The sample from the Zakros region succinctly examined above confirms that while the uses of caves in the broader area of a Minoan urban agglomeration may have been diverse, they are almost always supplementary or auxiliary in character. With the exception of the Neo-Palatial period, in all other phases some of the caves were selected for burial grounds for some social groups, the composition and their social position of which it is not possible to determine with certainty on the basis of the available data.A much smaller number of caves, chiefly during the acme of urbanization (Late Minoan I), appear to have been employed occasionally to cover secondary needs that were connected more with life than with death.

161

LEFTERIS PLATON Bibliography Marinatos, S. 1934. “Ausgrabungen und Funde auf Kreta 1933-1934,” AA, pp. 245-254.

Betancourt, Ph. P. 2005. “Egyptian Connections at Hagios Haralambos,” in Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, (Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004), R. Laffineur and E. Greco, eds., (Aegaeum 25), pp. 449-453.

———. 1935a. “Ανασκαφαί εν Κρήτη. Aρκαλοχώρι,” Prakt, pp. 212-220. ———. 1935b. “Ausgrabungen und Funde auf Kreta 1934-1935,” AA, pp. 244-259.

Davaras, K. 1989. “Mινωικά Mελισουργικά Σκεύη,” in Φίλια Έπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνά, Athens Archaeological Society, ed. (Τ.Γ΄), Athens, pp. 1-7.

______.1941. “The Cult of the Cretan Caves,” The Review of Religions 5, pp. 129-136.

Dawkins, R.M. and M.L.W. Laistner. 1912-1913. “The Excavation of the Kamares Cave in Crete,” BSA 19, pp. 1-34.

______.1962. “Zur Frage der Grotte von Arkalochori”, Kadmos 1, pp. 87-94. Nakassis, A. and A. Tagonidou. 1993. “Εντοπισμός Aρχαίων Θέσεων στην Ευρύτερη Περιοχή της Ζάκρου,” in Αναστήλωση-Συντήρηση-Προστασία Μνημείων και Συνόλων, Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού, ed., (3), Athens, pp. 739.

Evans, A.J. 1921-1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos I-IV, London. Faure P. 1964. Fonctions des cavernes crétoises, (École Française d’Athènes. Travaux et Mémoires 14), Paris.

Nilsson, M.P. 1950. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion, (2nd ed.), Lund.

———. 1969. “Antiques Cavernes de Refuge dans la Crète de l’Ouest,” AAA 2, pp. 213-216.

Pendlebury, H.W, J.D.S. Pendlebury and M.B. MoneyCoutts. 1935-1936. “Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi, I. The Cave of Trapeza,” BSA 36, pp. 5-131.

———. 1985. “Τα Iερά Σπήλαια της Κρήτης,” Archaeologia 15, pp. 8-13. ———. 1996. Ιερά Σπήλαια της Κρήτης, Herakleion.

Platakis, E. 1975. Σπήλαια και Άλλες Καρστικές Μορφές της Κρήτης (Vol. 2), Herakleion.

Guest-Papamanoli A. and A. Lambraki. 1976. “Les Grottes de Léra et de l’Arkoudia en Crète Occidentale aux Epoques Préhistoriques et Historiques,” ArchDelt 31, pp. 178-243.

Platon, E.M. 1988. The Workshops and Working Areas of Minoan Crete. The Evidence of the Palace and Town of Zakros for a Comparative Study, Ph.D. diss., University of Bristol.

Hazzidakis, J. 1912-13. “An Early Minoan Sacred Cave at Arkalokhori in Crete,” BSA 19, pp. 35-47.

———. 1999. “New Evidence for the Occupation at Zakros before the LM I Palace,” in Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year, Ph.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., (Aegaeum 20), pp. 671-681.

Hogarth, D.G. 1900-1901. “Excavations at Zakro, Crete,” BSA 7, pp. 120-149. Iliopoulos, T. 1988-89. “Σπήλαια, Δεξαμενές και Αποθέτες,” KretChron 28-29, pp. 86-93.

______.[forthcoming]. “‘Πεζούλες Κεφάλας’ Ζάκρου,” in Zάκρος I, Λ. Πλάτων, ed., Athens.

Kanetaki, M. [forthcoming]. “Το ‘Σπήλαιο Α της Σπηλιάρας’,” in Zάκρος I, Λ. Πλάτων ed., Athens.

Platon, N.E. 1930. “Περί της εν Κρήτη Λατρείας των Σταλακτιτών,” ArchEph, pp. 160-168.

Kopaka, K. 2003. “Just Taste Additive? Bronze Age Salt from Zakros, Crete,” OJA 22, pp. 53-66.

______.1961. “Aνασκαφή Κάτω Ζάκρου,” Prakt 1961 [1964], pp. 216-24.

———. 2011. “On Caves and Households in Bronze Age Crete: ‘Tis Ouranias to Froudi’ Cave at Zakros,” in ΣΤΕΓΑI. The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete, N. Vogeikoff-Brogan and K. Glowacki, eds., (Hesperia Suppl. 44), pp. 273-284.

———. 1962. “Aνασκαφή Ζάκρου.” Prakt [1966], pp. 142-168. ———. 1963. “Aνασκαφαί Ζάκρου,” Prakt [1966], pp. 160-188.

______.[forthcoming]. “To Σπήλαιο στης Oυρανίας το Φρουδι.” in Zάκρος I, Λ. Πλάτων, ed., Athens.

———. 1964. “Aνασκαφαί Ζάκρου,” Prakt [1966], pp. 142-168.

Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia, South Carolina.

162

THE USES OF CAVES IN MINOAN CRETE: A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS ———. 1967. “Aνασκαφαί Ζάκρου,” Prakt [1969], pp. 162-194. ———. 1970. Thessaloniki.

Kρητο-Μυκηναϊκή

Tyree, E.L. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, Columbia.

Θρησκεία, ———. 2001. “Diachronic Changes in Minoan Cave Cult,” in Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., (Aegaeum 22), pp. 39-50.

———. 1972. “Aνασκαφή Ζάκρου,” Prakt [1974], pp. 159-192. ———. 1973. “La Chronologie des Réceptacles de Trésors du Sanctuaire - the «Temple Repositories» - et des Autres Dépôts Contemporains du Palais de Cnossos,” in Πεπραγμένα του 3ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Athens, pp. 241-253.

Tzedakis, I. and I. Gavrilaki 1995. “Η Ανασκαφή στο Σπήλαιο Μελιδονίου,” in Πεπραγμένα του 7ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (1.2), N.E. Παπαδογιαννάκης, ed., Rethymnon, pp. 887-894.

Rethemiotakis, G. 1999. “Το Νέο Μινωικό Ανάκτορο στον Γαλατά Πεδιάδος και το ‘Ιερό Σπήλαιο’ Aρκαλοχωρίου,” in Κρήτες Θαλασσοδρόμοι, A. Kαρέτσου, ed., Herakleion, pp. 91-109.

van Leuven, J.C. 1981. “Problems and Methods of PreHellenic Naology,” in Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, May 1213, 1980), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., (SkrAth 4°, 28), Stockholm, pp. 11-25.

———. 2002. “Evidence on Social and Economic Changes at Galatas and Pediada in the New-Palace Period,” in Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces, (Proceedings of the International Workshop ”Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14-15 December 2001), J. Driessen, I. Schoep and R. Laffineur, eds., (Aegaeum 23), pp. 55-69.

Vasilakis, A. 1990. “Μινωική Κεραμική από το Ιδαίο Άντρο,” in Πεπραγμένα του 6ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, (Vol. 1.1), Hania, pp. 125-130. Vokotopoulos, L. 2000. “Οχυρές Πρωτο-Μινωικές Θέσεις στην Περιοχή Ζάκρου,” in Πεπραγμέαν του 8ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, (Vol. 1.1), A. Kαρέτσου, ed., Herakleion, pp. 129-146.

Rutkowski, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven and London. Rutkowski, B. and K. Nowicki. 1996. The Psychro Cave and Other Sacred Grottoes in Crete, (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilization 2.1), Warsaw.

Watrous, L.V. 1994. “Review of Aegean Prehistory III: Crete from Earliest Prehistory through the Protopalatial period,” AJA 98, pp. 695-753. ———. 1996. The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro. A Study of Extra-urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete, (Aegaeum 15), Liège. Xanthoudides, S.A. 1918. “Μέγας Πρωτομινωικός Τάφος Πύργου,” ArchDelt 4, pp. 136-70.

Sakellarakis, Y.A. 1985. “Η Νέα Έρευνα στο Ιδαίο Άντρο (1982-1984),” Αρχαιολογία 15, pp. 14-22. Sampson, A. 1985. “Τα Σπήλαια και η Χρήση τους στην Εύβοια και Γενικότερα στον Ελληνικό χώρο,” Aρχαιολογία 15, pp. 37-44.

Zois, A. 1973. Kρήτη-Εποχή του Λίθου, Athens.

Taramelli, A. 1897. “Cretan Expedition VIII. The Prehistoric Grotto at Miamù,” AJA 1, pp. 287-312.

Zois, A.A. 1991. “Κρήτη-Η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού, Αthens.

163

LEFTERIS PLATON

Figure 8.1. Top plan and sections of the “Dog Cave” in the Zakros Gorge (Zakros excavation archive).

164

THE USES OF CAVES IN MINOAN CRETE: A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS

Figure 8.2. The entrance of the cave in the small fjord to the south of the Zakros bay, called by the locals ‘Mavro Avlaki’ (Zakros excavation archive).

Figure 8.5. View from the interior of Cave A at Riza Spiliara (Zakros excavation archive).

Figure 8.3. Megalithic wall in Mavro Avlaki closing the ascent from the cave up to the plateau above it (Zakros excavation archive).

Figure 8.6. The mouth of the cave at the precipitous site “Tis Ouranias to Froudi”, in the Zakros Gorge (Zakros excavation archive). Figure 8.4. Building remains on a terrace immediately below the entrance of Cave A at Riza Spiliara Zakrou (Zakros excavation archive).

165

ELISSA FARO seem to have occurred: the presence of water (whether oozing, streaming, or stagnant); the presence of calcareous concretions; numerous offerings; evidence for burning (ash or smoke), an arranged descent, a way of pilgrimage, and the existence of a later literary, epigraphic or oral tradition (Faure 1994, 78). It is worth noting that Faure applies these criteria for ritual cave use to all periods of Antiquity. Bogdan Rutkowski suggests the following criteria: the mysterious appearance of the interior; the presence of stalagmites and stalactites; and the miraculous properties of the water (Rutkowski 1986, 50). Interestingly, he does not mention a unifying assemblage of material culture, but only the natural characteristics that would perhaps have inspired ritual worship in Minoan times. Loeta Tyree, in her dissertation, suggests only two criteria for identification: architecture, from traces of rectangular buildings to low walls surrounding stalagmites, and cult objects, including both offerings to a deity and cultic furniture (Tyree 1974, 6). Admittedly, these authors had very different projects, but they are all trying to describe attributes that signal why, of the hundreds of caves on Crete, only a few were singled out in the past as spaces for ritual performances.

9 Caves In The Ritual Landscape Of Minoan Crete Elissa Faro Introduction* What role did caves play in the ritual and socio-political landscape of the Minoan Bronze Age? Many of the caves traditionally identified as evidencing ritual use have been known for quite a long time, beginning with early archaeologists on Crete (Hogarth 1900; Taramelli 1901). As a result, a number of them are quite well known and have received much attention, both scholarly and in popular culture. What then, can be said about them that are new and different, short of newly excavated, or published material? Two main areas of focus that still deserve more attention, and from which more can be learned, are: 1. The ways in which the caves were experienced by Minoan ritual participants (this is not to say that there are not myriad other relations, uses, experiences, and understandings which could have been at play for Minoan ritual participants ). 2. How did Minoan cult practice at these caves relate to contemporary socio-political phenomena? Specifically, what was the nature of that link, and how was it different from ritual activity at other locals that have been interpreted under the rubric of ritual (for example, peak sanctuaries)?

These three scholars obviously offer a wide range of criteria. From Faure’s seven different, but precise characteristics that cover a wide chronological range of use, to Rutkowski’s solely natural conditions, to Tyree’s exclusively cultural focus, two major themes emerge: first, the natural characteristics that influence and shape the visitor’s experience, and second, evidence of the ritual activities that were performed there. These are the two issues that I explore in this paper in order to complicate our image of Minoan ritual cave use. The nature and quality of the experience of visiting a cave need to be acknowledged in order to unravel how these factors shaped visitors’ engagement with the features and space, and, more specifically, what we can tease out about those activities themselves from the extant material culture. In other words, does the material culture residue of ritual activity in caves reflect the sensory experience of participation? And what can a more nuanced understanding of the ritual activity in Minoan caves tell us about contemporary socio-political practice?

Although hundreds of caves are scattered across the landscape of Crete, there are only about a dozen caves that can be securely identified as places that were visited for ritual purposes during the Minoan period, and those are found primarily in central Crete (Fig. 9.1). What singles them out as a cohesive group of sites that were used for ritual, as opposed to domestic or mortuary practices? In order to more fully comprehend the ritual activity that has left a material culture signature at this unique group of sites, and to understand how caves inform our ideas about issues of power and ideology in the ritual landscape of Minoan Crete, it is necessary to unpack what we mean by Minoan ritual cave use.

Before describing and analyzing the natural qualities and appearance of the caves that shape visitor’s experience and actions, we may note the plausible explanation offered by Sir Colin Renfrew as to why these aspects might have figured so prominently in the selection of certain caves for ritual use. In his introduction to The Archaeology of Cult: the Sanctuary at Phylakopi, Renfrew explains that a ritual space should have certain qualities:

Identifying Criteria The first step to answering this question is to consider what criteria scholars have used in order to classify particular caves as ritual and to assess the validity of those classifications. Paul Faure, who has dedicated himself to Cretan cave research for many years, lists some of the features that characterize caves in which cult activities

“The essence of religious ritual, as I see it, is the performance of expressive actions of worship and propitiation by the human celebrant towards the transcendent being” (Renfrew 1985, 18).

*

I would like to thank my advisor, John Cherry, along with Sue Alcock, Laurie Talalay, and Chris Witmore for reading many drafts of this paper and all of their helpful conversations. I would also like to thank the editors, Jesper Tae Jensen and Fanis Mavridis, for inviting me to contribute to this volume. All shortcomings remain my own.

According to Renfrew, the archaeological correlates of these actions are: attention focusing, special aspects of

166

CAVES IN THE RITUAL LANDSCAPE OF MINOAN CRETE the liminal zone, presence of the transcendent and its symbolic focus, and participation and offering (Renfrew 1985, 18-19). Because of the natural qualities that Faure and Rutkwoski have highlighted, such as the presence of water and calcareous concretions, caves naturally focus the attention of a visitor and signal the space as different and liminal. But these are not the only two characteristics of caves that contribute to the experience – in fact, all of the senses are affected by a variety of aspects presented by almost every cavern.

side of the mountain ascends in enormous gradations of calcareous rock steeply toward the two-headed summit; and the tortuous path winds close to the precipices clothed with asphodel and fragrant salvias …” (Taramelli 1901, 443-444). The fact that this process is often long and requires physical effort helps to signal to the visitor that the destination will be worth the trek. All of these features may be considered obvious, but they are aspects of ritual participation that doubtlessly shaped the experience of past worshippers even more so than that of modern day visitors.

Sensory Experience The inherent qualities of a cave afford a very different sensory experience than those possible at other contemporary ritual spaces on Minoan Crete: on the tops of mountains, or in a sacred grove, or in the central court of a palace (Fig. 9.1). Caves are not only dark – they are wet. The presence of water influences not only the shape and layout of the space, but it also affects almost every aspect of experiencing a cave. Dripping water produces stalactites and stalagmites, which are geologically unique to caves. Pools of water often form, which sometimes themselves became the foci of ritual activity in the Minoan period, especially at Psychro Cave, where most of the votive offerings were discovered in the pool (Hogarth 1900, 91). This is a practice not limited to caves; peak sanctuaries often had wells and springs associated with them, as well as the sanctuary of Kato Syme, where the spring cuts through the shrine (Peatfield 1995, 223). Sounds of water dripping, hitting stones, or landing in pools are an unremitting soundtrack to time in a cave. The persistent damp also creates a particular odor that is immediately identifiable and distinguishable as the interior of a cave.

Some scholars, such as Tyree, have begun to try to understand how Minoans experienced caves, particularly from a ritual perspective. But they have focused mostly on the visual aspect of the dichotomy between the light of the outside and the dark interior of the cave. Tyree has explored issues of performance in cave ritual, and the possibility that worshippers experienced trance-like states, induced, at least in part, by the darkness itself, in contrast to the bright Cretan sun (Tyree 2001, 43). Argued above, however, vision is not the only sense affected by a visit to a cave. Cultural anthropologists and psychologists have begun to explore the idea that the Western model of privileging vision over the other senses is not a cross-cultural universal (Classen 1997; Stoller 1989; Howes 1991). The work of these scholars has demonstrated that sensory perception is not just a physical, but also a cultural act: “We experience our bodies – and the world – through our senses. Thus the cultural construction of sensory perception conditions our experience and understanding of our bodies and the world at a fundamental level” (Classen 1997, 402).

Other physical characteristics of a cave also affect aspects of the experience. Caves are cool in the heat of a Cretan summer, and warm in the winter, even when snow covers the mountainside around them. Sounds, whether of water trickling through the various crevices and dripping down from stalactites and onto stalagmites, or the footsteps of a visitor, or the calls of nesting birds and sleeping bats, echo and reverberate, in such a way that the source from which these sounds emanate is not immediately clear. Additionally disorienting is the darkness itself, which can cause missteps, slips, and uncertainty, and may lead to altered and distorted perceptions of the shapes of objects and spaces within the cave (a tricky situation with a torch in the hand or ritual paraphernalia in the arms).

Although arguably easier to study ethnographically how cultures invest sensory experience with social value and cultural meaning, some archaeologists have nonetheless begun to take these concepts into consideration of their study of material pasts and cultures, through both theory and methodology (Witmore 2006; Hamilakis 2002). In this regard – that is, understanding past sensory experience - caves offer an advantage. Whereas a modern visitor to (say) the Minoan palaces is confronted with very fragmentary archaeological ruins or, in the case of Knossos, a largely modern fiction, the largely unchanging appearance of natural caves allows those who visit them today – whether tourists, local shepherds, or archaeologists – to experience something closely akin to what Bronze Age visitors to the self-same caves could well have felt.

Another crucial ingredient of a visit to most of the Cretan caves is the process of maneuvering through what can be quite difficult terrain, in order to reach the cave (Fig. 9.2). For instance, describing the ascent up to Kamares Cave, on the southern slopes of Mount Ida, Antonio Taramelli wrote:

Previous Work It is not necessary to say too much about the domestic and habitation use of caves, thanks to the other contributors to this volume. However, Minoan ritual cave use has been undertheorized, in part due to the lack of detailed publication of the excavated assemblages. Caves as a

“And such a fatiguing climb, of at least four hours, was for the pilgrims a sort of propitiation of the divinity, for they gained the height with no slight difficulty … The

167

ELISSA FARO category unto themselves have only rarely been linked to larger contemporary socio-political phenomena on Crete, unlike the other major category of extra-urban ritual site; the peak sanctuaries. The one obvious exception is Kamares, which has been linked to elite palatial culture through Kamares Ware, the presence of which provides evidence for a direct link to palatial assemblages, particularly at Phaistos (see also Walberg 1987).

landscape, particularly in relation to peak sanctuaries and palatial culture. Generally, the phase when Minoan ritual use of caves is considered to reach its apogee is in Middle Minoan III, although there is evidence for use of a ritual nature going back as far as the Early Minoan period (Rutkowski 1986, 59). Peak sanctuaries are the type of site most closely and often compared to caves, and the chronology of their use is roughly similar (with one important exception; that of Jouktas). That is, there exists evidence of activity in the Early Minoan periods, but the nature of the assemblages suggests either habitation or mortuary use; for example the Early Minoan tombs at Amnissos (Betancourt and Marinatos 2000, 188). Then, the caves begun to exhibit evidence of non-mortuary ritual activity in the early Middle Minoan periods, roughly contemporary with the rise of palatial society. The peak sanctuaries emerge as ritual locations contemporaneously, but they are much more numerous and varied than the caves in the early period. Interestingly, however, the peak sanctuaries decrease in number and increase in monumentality toward the end of the Middle Minoan period, at the very time when the ritual use of caves comes into prominence.

Despite this lack of theoretical discussion, the caves themselves have long been known and have been investigated periodically over the last century. At the turn of the 20th century, the pioneering archaeologists Federico Halbherr and Joseph Hazzidakis worked at the Psychro Cave, following Sir Arthur John Evans’ work there at the end of the 19th century. Taramelli at Kamares Cave in 1901, and Hazzidakis at Arkalochori Cave in 1913, began excavations that continued periodically through the following century, up to recent and current research (Marinatos 1962; Sakellarakis 1985). The work of Faure both greatly expanded the number of known Cretan caves with cultural deposits and furthered our understanding of the uses and cultic activity at those locales (Faure 1964, 1994). Tyree’s dissertation usefully surveys and organizes all the available information on Cretan caves of all periods (Tyree 1974). More recently, re-examinations of earlier excavations, such as the analysis by Rutkowski and Krzysztof Nowicki, and also Livingstone Vance Watrous of material from Psychro, have provided a more detailed analysis of the votive assemblages (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Watrous 1996). In her review of Minoan religion, Nanno Marinatos has discussed the dedications from the caves, in particular the figurines, which she importantly argues express something about the identity of the worshippers, rather than the deities (Marinatos 1993, 124). All of this work together has produced a body of literature that encompasses distribution of the caves across the landscape, detailed descriptions of the assemblages themselves, and general discussions of ritual cave use. But there is still much more information that the caves can yield simply by asking different questions of the material.

Peak sanctuary ritual has been discussed in relation to the rise of palatial society in Minoan Crete. John Cherry first emphasized the rise of a new class of ritual site at the same time as the emergence of the palaces, the material links between the palaces and the peak sanctuaries, and that this might reflect deliberate attempts by special interest groups at the palaces to consolidate their power via the communal performance of ritual activities (Cherry 1984, 29-32). Alan Peatfield then further refined this interpretation by looking more closely at the chronology of this relationship in order to argue that the peak sanctuaries began as a rural, agricultural phenomenon that was later co-opted by the emergent elite in order to legitimize new power structures (Peatfield 2001, 93). Caves increase in importance slightly later, when palatial society and its rituals had already become established (Kyriakidis 2005, 77-98). Recently, however, it has been argued that in the Proto-Palatial period power relationships were more horizontal than they became later (Knappett and Schoep 2000, 365). Using evidence relating to administrative systems, settlement patterns and material culture patterning, scholars have shown that power relations in the ProtoPalatial period were perhaps diffused across a broad elite stratum, as opposed to a traditional pyramidal structure with one or a few individuals at the top (Schoep 1994 on administrative systems; Cunningham and Driessen 2004 on settlement patterns). In contrast, in the Neo-Palatial period, the political structure becomes decidedly more hierarchical, with some type of palatial elite in control. In light of the chronology and nature of the ritual activity at the caves, does their associated material culture assemblage in any way reflect these shifting power dynamics? In order to consider the question, the nature and range of the observed assemblages should be reviewed.

Cave Assemblages And Their Socio-Political Implications If we return to the criteria presented at the beginning of the paper, it was not just the natural characteristics of ritual caves that separated them from the many other caves on Crete, but also the material culture assemblages that remain as evidence for the ritual activity that was performed there. Faure mentions numerous offerings and traces of burning, and Tyree’s only two criteria are architecture and cult objects. These material deposits – the nature of the objects (raw materials, iconography, etc.) and the location of the finds – offer a basis for inferences about the identity of the participants, their connection to palatial culture, and their varied ritual activities at the caves. First, the wealth of information these deposits provide needs to be situated within the larger Minoan ritual

168

CAVES IN THE RITUAL LANDSCAPE OF MINOAN CRETE From the evidence presented in Tables 1 and 2, it may be seen that there are six caves that can be identified as evidencing ritual use in the Middle Minoan I-II period: Psychro Cave, Skoteino Cave, Amnissos Cave, Stravomyti Cave, Idaean Cave, and Kamares Cave. However, the finds from three of these caves – Amnissos Cave, Arkalochori Cave, and Skoteino Cave - consist almost entirely of pottery, although the ceramic forms suggest offerings of agricultural products as well as feasting and drinking. In Middle Minoan III-Late Minoan I, the number of caves increases dramatically: Phaneromeni Cave, Skoteino Cave, Amnissos Cave, Hosto Nero Cave, Stravomyti Cave, Tylissos Cave, Idaean Cave, Patsos Cave, Mameloukos Cave, Psychro Cave, and Arkalochori Cave. Although Psychro Cave and Arkalochori Cave have yielded the largest, most complex assemblages, a number of other caves also exhibits much more varied offerings than simply ceramics. The Idaean Cave, Hosto Nero Cave, Patsos Cave and Skoteino Cave, for example, all have produced distinctive votive finds, e.g. bronze figurines, weaponry and personal items, stone vessels (some with Linear A writing), and cult items made of gold and silver.

patterns, convey the distinctly elite status of the ritual participants who used and dedicated them. The raw materials – stone, gold and silver – are precious and suggest differential access to trade and craftsmanship. The iconography of the objects, various types of votive weaponry and jewelry, is usually only associated with the upper strata of Minoan society. In contrast to the peak sanctuary assemblages, in which there is very little metal at all, the votives found in the caves are more definitively linked to a palatial culture. Admittedly, this picture is further complicated by the fact that the peak sanctuaries exhibit strong palatial links in the Neo-Palatial period, particularly by artifacts discovered both at palaces and peak sanctuaries with related iconography, such as the Zakros rhyton (see Peatfield 1987). This disparity may be due, at least in part, to differential site preservation for peak sanctuaries and caves, although it is worth noting that the caves, too, were looted extensively, a phenomenon noted especially by early archaeologists such as Taramelli and Hazzidakis. A bronze anthropomorphic figurine clearly communicates a higher status than its counterpart made from clay. I would suggest that the elite who traveled to the caves to worship and dedicate votives to the deity were doing so specifically in order to signal their identity and to confirm their individual status and elite position, a message that was made even more clear by the dedication of anthropomorphic figurines fashioned in bronze. Furthermore, these ritual participants were affirming their group membership and identity with activities such as drinking and feasting (Wright 2004). Within the framework of the new power dynamics of the Neo-Palatial period, a more exclusive and powerful elite had differential access to raw materials and craftsmanship that allowed them to dedicate votives of high quality that were objects almost exclusively associated with people of high status.

In the Middle Minoan I-II period (Table 9.1) the first period of the distinctly ritual use of certain caves, the assemblages consist primarily of ceramics. Rutkowski interprets these as the vessels that held offerings of grains and cereals that were brought to the deity (Rutkowski 1986, 56). Although there is a number of storage vessels, such as pithoi, that support this interpretation, this explanation does not take into account the entire picture. The assemblages also have numerous cups, plates and jars – along with bones and evidence of burning – that would rather suggest that eating and drinking activities too may have been taking place at the caves themselves in this period. Particularly at Kamares Cave, where a number of painted and Barbotine vessels occurs, there are indications of complex ritual activity, not simply the dedication of plain, everyday ceramics as storage vessels for agricultural offerings (van der Moortel 2006).

Both the experience and the material culture have to be taken together in order to understand what happened at the caves, the ritual activity, and what this can tell us about Minoan socio-political complexity. In his introduction to a recent special issue of the Journal of Material Culture, Christopher Tilley writes: “Landscape and place are often experienced as a structure of feeling through activities and performances which crystallize and express group identities to the outside world through passing through and identifying with particular places and particular histories” (Tilley 2006, 14).

In the Middle Minoan III-Late Minoan I period (Table 9.2), the quality and nature of the assemblages change. Although ceramics continue to be the most ubiquitous component of the assemblage, the range of other offerings becomes more numerous and varied. For example, six of the caves have produced bronze objects ranging from anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, to personal items, to cult symbols such as double axes. The most notable and dramatic shift is in the large number of metal offerings including the figurines, weaponry (votive model blades of daggers and knives, and swords) and jewelry (tweezers, needles, chisels and razors). Further, there are even gold and silver votive dedications, such as double axes and miniature swords, found at Psychro Cave and Arkalochori Cave.

The caves, even more so than the peak sanctuaries, had a long history of use before the elite use of the space as a venue for ritual activity: they had already been Neolithic habitation sites, and mortuary sites in the Early Minoan. A re-examination of the evidence has shown that the caves did indeed constitute a different sensory experience than other ritual spaces on Minoan Crete, and that the material culture assemblages are distinctly different as well, being more closely linked to an elite stratum of society. The change in both the number of ritual caves in use and their associated assemblages provides evidence for a di-

Discussion The votive offerings listed above for Middle Minoan IIILate Minoan I, even if only suggesting general trends and

169

ELISSA FARO rect, complex connection with both the peak sanctuaries and contemporary socio-political phenomena. The caves become greater in number and their assemblages more elite-associated during the very period when the peak sanctuaries decrease in number (and become monumentalized) and a new, different power structure develops in

the Neo-Palatial period. In bringing together these seemingly disparate approaches, if briefly, I hope to have illustrated that it is necessary to consider these aspects together in order to produce a picture of Minoan ritual cave use that demonstrates the complexity of that ritual practice and its place in the Minoan ritual landscape.

170

CAVES IN THE RITUAL LANDSCAPE OF MINOAN CRETE ish Institute in Athens, 10—16 June 1984), R. Hagg and N. Marinatos, eds., (SkrAth 35), Stockholm, pp. 89-93.

Bibliography Betancourt, PP. and N. Marinatos. eds. 2000. (in collaboration with Τ. Αlmbani, Κ. Palyvou, Ν. PoulouPapademetriou, S. German, and S. McPherron). “To Σπήλαιο της Αμνισού: H Έρευνα του 1992,” ArchEph 139, [2001], pp. 179-236.

______.1995. “Water, Fertility and Purification in Minoan Religion,” in Klados. Essays in Honor of J.N. Coldstream, C. Morris, ed., (BICS Suppl. 63), London, pp. 217-227.

Cherry, J. 1984. “The Emergence of the State in the Prehistoric Aegean,” PCPS 210 (ns 30), pp. 18-48.

______.2001. “Divinity and Performance on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” in POTNIA: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., (Aegeaum 22), Liège, pp. 51-55.

Classen, C. 1997. “Foundations for an Anthropology of the Senses,” International Social Science Journal 49, pp. 401-411. Cunningham, T. and J. Driessen. 2004. “Site by Site: Combining Survey and Excavation Data to Chart Patterns of Socio-political Change in BA Crete,” in Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, J. Cherry and S. Alcock, eds., Oxford, pp. 101-113.

Renfrew, C. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi, (BSA Suppl. 18,) London. Rutkowski, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven. Rutkowski B. and K. Nowicki. 1996. The Psychro Cave and Other Sacred Grottoes in Crete, (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilization 2.1), Warsaw.

Faure, P. 1994. “Cavernes Sacrées de la Crète Antique,” Cretan Studies 4, pp. 77-83. Hamilakis, Y. 2002. “The Past as Oral History: Towards an Archaeology of the Senses,” in Thinking Through the Body. Archaeologies of Corporeality, Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik and S. Tarlow, eds., New York, pp. 121-146.

Sakellarakis, J. 1985. “L’Antro Ideo. Cento Anni di Attivita” Archaeologica (1884-1984),” Atti dei Convegni Lincei 74, p. 23

Hogarth, D.G. 1900. “The Cave of Psychro in Crete,” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 30, pp. 90-91.

Schoep, I. 1994. “Ritual, Politics and Script on Minoan Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 7-25 Stoller, P. 1989. The Taste of Ethnographic Things: The Senses in Anthropology, Philadelpheia.

Howes, D. 1991. The Varieties of Sensory Experience: A Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses, Toronto.

Taramelli, A. 1901. “Cretan Expedition XX: A Visit to the Grotto of Camares on Mount Ida,” AJA 5, pp. 437451.

Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, London. Jones, D.W. 1999. Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete: A Comparison of the Artifacts, (SIMA-PB 156), Jonsered.

Tilley, C. 2006. “Introduction: Identity, Place, Landscape and History,” Journal of Material Culture 11, pp. 7-23. Tyree, L. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, Columbia.

Knappett, C. and I. Schoep. 2000. “Continuity and Change in Minoan Palatial Power,” Antiquity 74, pp. 365371.

______.2001. “Diachronic Changes in Minoan Cave Cult,” in Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., (Aegaeum 22), Göteborg , pp. 39-50.

Kyriakidis, E. 2005. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean: The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries, London. Marinatos, N. 1993. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image and Symbol, Columbia

van de Moortel, A. 2006. “A Re-examination of the Pottery from the Kamares Cave,” in Pottery and Society: The Impact of Recent Studies in Minoan pottery, (Gold Medal Colloquium in Honor of Philip P. Betancourt), M.H. Wiener, J.L. Warner, J. Polonsky, and E.E. Hayes, eds., Boston, pp. 73-93.

Marinatos, S. 1962. “Zur Frage der Grotte von Arkalochori,” Kadmos 1, pp. 87-94. Peatfield, A. 1987. “Palace and Peak: The Political and Religious Relationship Between Palaces and Peak Sanctuaries,” in The Function of the Minoan Palaces, (Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium at the Swed-

171

ELISSA FARO Walberg, G. 1987. Kamares: A Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery, (2nd Rev. ed., SIMA-PB 49), Göteborg.

Witmore, C. 2006. “Vision, Media, Noise, and the Percolation of Time,” Journal of Material Culture 11, pp. 265290.

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

Wright, J.C. ed. 2004. The Mycenaean Feast, (Hesperia Suppl. 73,2) Athens.

172

CAVES IN THE RITUAL LANDSCAPE OF MINOAN CRETE

Figure 9.1. Map of Crete, showing the distribution of caves (white circles) against Minoan ritual caves (black squares). Data taken from Faure 1964, no. 3 and Tyree 1975, no. 5.

Figure 9.2. The interior of Psychro Cave (Photo by E. Faro).

Figure 9.3. View across valley from terrace in front of Kamares Cave (Photo by E. Faro).

173

ELISSA FARO

Table 9.1. Categories of finds of cave assemblages from the Proto-Palatial period.

174

CAVES IN THE RITUAL LANDSCAPE OF MINOAN CRETE

Table 9.2. Categories of finds of cave assemblages from the Neo-Palatial period.

175

LOETA TYREE pattern of artifact types have been noted previously (Watrous 1996; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Jones 1999, 616, 22-27; Tyree, Kanta and Sphakianakis 2007).

10 Defining Bronze Age Ritual Caves In Crete

The following nine Protopalatial and/or Neo-Palatial caves meet the above criteria for sacred caves: Psychro Cave, Skoteino Cave, Idaean Cave, Kamares Cave, Melidoni Cave, Phaneromeni Cave, Tylissos Cave (Trapeza Tylissou), Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa), and Hosto Nero Cave (Fig. 10.1). Of these, only Kamares Cave has a substantial Protopalatial deposit, which consists almost exclusively of pottery. Dawkins and Laistner’s (Dawkins and Laistner 1912-1913, 11-12, 32) assessment of a restricted and limited range of pottery and thus a ritual function for Kamares Cave has been recently confirmed (Tyree and Van de Moortel 2005, 70; Van de Moortel 2006, 83). Elenes Amariou Cave and Amnissos Cave (Cave of Eileithyia) do not appear to meet the above criteria because they were possibly burial caves. Both caves warrant the following brief explanation.

Loeta Tyree Introduction* This paper focuses on observations about the ritual uses of caves, with comparisons to peak sanctuaries on Crete in the Proto-Palatial and Neo-Palatial periods (ca. 19001450 B.C.). The Palatial Era is a good focal point because ritual (non burial) use of caves is most easily discernible archaeologically at that time, when it appears to have reached its zenith in terms of numbers of sites and quantity of artifacts. This provides a perspective on the fundamental nature of the ritual use of sacred caves during the Minoan Palatial Era in Crete. Proto-Palatial And Neo-Palatial Sacred Caves: Definition And Distribution

The small Elenes Amariou Cave (limited and encumbered floor space, low ceiling height throughout, poor ventilation, dangerous downward-sloping passageways, very small entrance (width 0.8 m, height 1.2 m) and the presence of a Minoan burial suggests a burial function sometime during the Bronze Age. The function of the ProtoPalatial assemblage is difficult to ascertain. It includes a clay plaque, several figurine fragments that may have been attached to the plaque, four stone vases (a miniature stone goblet, a ladle, a stone handle of a vase, and a small stone lid), two vases with attached animal figures, and at least one clay sealing (Kanta and Tzigounaki 2001). Except for the ladle and perhaps the plaque, all are artifact types that do occur in burials (Georgoulaki 1995-1996, I, 176-178 for stone vessels, 236 for miniature goblets, 238240 for vases with attached animals, 240 for clay bowls with an animal(s) set inside the bottom of the bowl). Early Minoan Pyrgos ware (Marinatos 1933, 296) was also present, another indictor of a burial function. Moreover, Marinatos located a nearby Early Minoan settlement (Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 139) that could have used the cave for burials. Although stone ladles are known only from ritual sites and contexts (Warren 1969, 48-49), the attributes of the cave are not conducive for a ritual (non funerary) function.

Definition A critical factor in any discussion of sacred caves is a determination of which caves should be included. For our purposes, a cave is defined as a large, natural quasi semi circular (in cross section) void in bedrock that is larger in size and extends into the bedrock for a greater distance than cavities or rockshelters (Tyree 2006, 330). When human bones are absent, a sacred, non funerary function is indicated by the presence of a pottery assemblage that differs from normal household pottery assemblages (Dawkins and Laistner 1912-1913, 32). Specifically, some household pottery shapes are absent while there is an overabundance of others. A sacred cave assemblage also typically includes any combination of the following types of known ritual objects: bronze anthropomorphic figurines, metal votive double axes, stone libation tables, inscribed clay or stone vessels, and specialized pottery shapes including chalikes, “communion cups”, and pottery with appliqué decoration. Individual objects included in this

                                                             *

 This paper is written with gratitude to the Institute for Aegean Prehistory and the Mediterranean Archaeological Trust for their sponsorship of the Skoteino Cave and Kamares Cave Projects (to INSTAP for the latter). The pottery, from Costis Davaras’ 1962 excavation of Skoteino Cave, is being prepared for publication in a volume co-edited by Athanasia Kanta, Davaras, and the author with contributions by Harriet Lewis Robinson and Jane Francis. The Kamares Cave, both the cave as well as the pottery from Richard M. Dawkins and Max Ludwig Wolfram Laistner’s 1913 excavation and publication, is being restudied for publication by Aleydis Van de Moortel and the author. We thank the Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Greek Ministry of Culture for permission. Thanks are also extended to Harriet Lewis Robinson, Floyd McCoy, and Polymnia Muhly for reading an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks are also extended to Aleydis Van de Moortel for assistance in dating the comp aranda for the reported sherds from Hosto Nero Cave and to Iphigeneia Tournavitou for a copy of her manuscript.

A recent pottery study shows that Amnisos cave served a funerary function from the Neolithic through the Early Minoan II period. Thereafter, the cave was infrequently visited until the Historic period when evidence suggests that the cave was associated with a local cult of some unknown deity, possibly Artemis (see Marinatos 1996, 136; Betancourt and Marinatos 2000, 236). The pottery study confirms Spyridon Marinatos’ (1929, 99) impression that Neo-Palatial sherds were particularly scarce. Even though it is generally believed (Marinatos 1929, 95; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 21) that this cave is the Eileithyia Cave mentioned by Homer (Hom. Od. 19.188), no evidence was found for her worship. Although the limited range of Middle to Late Minoan pottery forms and the

176

DEFINING BRONZE AGE RITUAL CAVES IN CRETE poor quality of air within the cave suggest that the cave’s Middle and Late Bronze Age function was not secular in nature, the lack of information about the find spots of the pottery within the cave hinders an evaluation of the function. For the present, it can only be asserted that firm evidence for a non funerary ritual use of Amnissos Cave (Cave of Eileithyia) comes well after the Bronze Age.

number of cups and jugs and a great variety of both metal and stone objects and other cult paraphernalia (Watrous 1996, 48-51). The same may be said of the Idaean Cave although the non pottery items are far less plentiful. Its assemblage includes: numerous sherds primarily from small vessels, a bronze male figurine, a bronze votive double axe, several sealstones, and stone vessels (see Watrous 1996, 58 for references).

Arkalochori Cave, a site well known for its extraordinary quantity of Neo- Palatial bronze objects (including swords and votive double axes), is not a ritual cave for several reasons. Most importantly, it is a cavity rather than a cave; in agreement with Y. Rethemiotakis (pers. comm.). Although human bone was not reported, the presence of Early Minoan I-II pottery including Early Minoan I Pyrgos ware (monumental chalikes, cups, jugs, and a pyxis), comparable to that of Pyrgos Burial Cave, is indicative of a burial function (Pendlebury 1939, 56; Tyree 2006, 333; for the pottery, see Hazzidakis 19121913). Although there appears to be no pottery assemblage or vessel type that is diagnostic of a burial when human bone and/or a burial container is absent, cups and jugs consistently occur in Pre-Palatial burials and pyxides (small and lidded vessels probably to hold small sized personal belongings) regularly occur (see Georgoulaki 1995-1996, I, 171-172).

The assemblages from the other caves consist primarily of pottery, usually in large quantities. Neo-Palatial bronze anthropomorphic figurines are recorded from only four caves [Psychro Cave, Idaean Cave, Skoteino Cave, and Tylissos Cave (Trapeza Tylissou)]. It appears that pottery in all Protopalatial and Neo-Palatial sacred caves, including the two richest caves, provided the essential ritual component and may have played a far greater and important role in ritual activity than heretofore realized. Distribution Sacred caves of the Neo-Palatial period are mainly known from central Crete, but several have been found farther west [Melidoni Cave and Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa)] (see Fig. 10.1). Presently, none are known from eastern Crete, a lack that may be due in part to the paucity of reporting (K. Aretaki pers. comm.) as well as the nature of the caves in that region. The Siteia region has very few widely known caves that can be easily entered. Many have pit (vertical drop) entrances and particularly difficult entrances at that (M. Belidis, pers. comm.). The large caves with relatively easy entrances in eastern Crete are worth further investigation as to whether they are sacred caves, since some (Voivoda Cave, Mikro Katofygi Cave, and Latsida Vreikou Cave) have yielded sherds (Papadakis 1983, 47-48, 74; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1986, 160) and another, Pelekita Cave, has a Neolithic and Bronze Age assemblage that warrants fuller publication (Davaras 1983, 375-376).

The cave’s excavator, Marinatos (Marinatos 1935, 218; 1962, 92), commented that the negligible quantity of Neo-Palatial pottery as well as the homogeneity of the bronze artifacts (swords, daggers, knives, and double axes) did not indicate a Neo-Palatial sacred cave and concluded that the site, with its full sized but unfinished swords and the presence of raw materials, indicated a workshop. His hypothesis may be altered slightly to propose that the seemingly unfinished quality of some of the artifacts suggests that the assemblage may represent the contents of a metal workshop, but not the actual location of the workshop, not for example the place of manufacture (D. Evely, pers. comm.). It must be noted that an altar was not actually found (contra Tyree 1974, 29; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 2). Instead the excavator stated that some objects were found in such a manner as to suggest an altar, an idea that he later abandoned. It seems most likely that the Arkalochori Cave assemblage represents a hoard of some kind or a temporary deposit (Rethemiotakis 1999, 105-107, 111; Tyree 2006, 333). Why this enormous collection of bronzes was stored or stashed, largely in piles, in this cavity at Arkalochori remains unknown.

John Devitt Stringfellow Pendlebury (Pendlebury, Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1935-1936, 96) believed that Latsida Vreikou Cave was the Diktaion Cave. He made his assessment based partly on the size and spectacular nature of the cave, but also on his belief that Mount Dikte is farther east than the Mount Dikte that bears this name today. The cave’s location is significant as it overlooks the north-south route from Siteia to Makrygialos (near the Minoan villa) as well as being near Neo-Palatial settlements (Nowicki 1994, 245). The cave is large and spectacular with a lower chamber containing a pool of water and many speleothems. Pottery has been reported from the cave (Papadakis 1983, 74; Georgiakakis et al. 2006, 49), but excavation has never been carried out because of the difficulty of removing earth from two major roof falls, including one at the cave’s entrance (I thank Dimitris Sphakianakis for introducing me to this cave).

Two other caves are also exceptional for their wealth of artifacts, although they are both certainly Neo-Palatial sacred caves and were particularly important ritual sites. In addition to a considerable quantity of Neo-Palatial pottery, their assemblages contained a far greater quantity and variety of non pottery artifacts than other sacred caves. Both are located at high elevations: the Idaean Cave is on the highest mountain in Crete, Mount Ida, while Psychro Cave is on the northern slopes of Mount Dikte. The Psychro Cave assemblage includes a large

177

LOETA TYREE Proto-Palatial And Neo-Palatial Sacred Caves: Criteria For Choosing Ritual Caves

took place during the warmer seasons due to difficulties in access and cooler internal temperatures.

Cave Entry And Morphology

Location of And Access To Ritual Chambers

In understanding types of caves chosen for ritual purposes, the inclination of a cave’s entrance may have been significant. Downward sloping caves are cooler than other types of caves (Faure 1964, 39-40). They owe their freshness to gravity, which allows heavier cold and drier air rather than lighter hot and moist summer air to sink into the cave. Shepherds prefer slightly ascending caves as they are relatively hot caves, keeping their warmth in winter and losing their cold air in summer due to density separation. Horizontal caves, in contrast to those that are inclined, maintain a more constant year around humidity and temperature. They maintain cooler air (than external air) during summer months and are warmer and drier during winter months (November to March). In contrast, rockshelters and shallow caves with large openings do not show a substantial difference between interior and external air.

All nine caves have walk in entrances and almost all are very large, deep caves (Figs. 10.2, 10.3). The downward sloping caves have multiple chambers at significantly different decreasing elevations (Psychro Cave, Skoteino Cave, Melidoni Cave, Kamares Cave, Idaean Cave, and Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa). The horizontal caves [Phaneromeni Cave, Tylissos Cave (Trapeza Tylissou), and Hosto Nero Cave] have multiple chambers and/or recesses, but at little or no difference in elevation. Moreover, ritual areas tend to be deep within the cave. At Kamares Cave most of the pottery, which belongs predominately to the Proto-Palatial period, came from the outer chamber and primarily from the bottom of that chamber, along its northern edge (Dawkins and Laistner 1912-1913, 10, pl. 2.2-2.6; Van de Moortel 2006, 75). Neo-Palatial (Late Minoan I) sherds were noted as coming from half way down the right hand slope (Dawkins and Laistner 1912-1913, 9, pl. 2.1). They were also found in the bottom of the outer chamber, and some also may have been found in the inner cave, but their context within the cave is not completely certain (Van de Moortel 2006, 85-86, especially n. 54). At Skoteino Cave, most of the Neo-Palatial pottery was found in a semi-secluded and an adjoining secluded chamber that is reached by two steep, rocky descents (Fig. 10.4) (Tyree et al. 2011, 718724). Similarly, the Proto-Palatial and Neo-Palatial pottery assemblage at Melidoni Cave was found primarily in a secluded chamber, reached by a steep, rocky descent (Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki 1988, 305-307; Tzedakis and Gavrilaki 1995, 887-894). At Hosto Nero Cave, the small, northern chamber was used for ritual purposes during the Protopalatial and Neo-Palatial periods, from approximately Middle Minoan IIB to Late Minoan I (Taramelli 1899, 357; Myres 1902-1903, 379; Faure 1964, 175, n. 6). This chamber was separated from the cave entrance by a long, narrow and horizontal passageway. Excavation at Tylissos Cave (Trapeza Tylissou), which yielded NeoPalatial pottery, was limited to approximately the center of the easily accessible main chamber, the only part of the cave excavated (Hazzidakis 1934, 75-76). The descent into the lower ritual chamber at Psychro Cave is the most dramatic (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 12-15, figs. 46). The chamber is deep in the cave, involving a steep, rocky descent. Any route down is long, slippery, and winding even after modern enhancements. Most of the assemblages mentioned above are at the limits of illumination, with some exceptions: the Kamares Cave has better penetration of external ambient light, since its south-southwest facing entrance allows light into the upper reaches of the cave (Tyree 2001, 44, pl. 11d). Nevertheless, most ritual activity, judging from the location of the majority of the pottery, took place in the bottom of the outer chamber and generally between the back wall of the cave and a parallel natural wall of accumulated boulders reaching to a height of about 8 m, in an area of very little ambient light. Tylissos Cave (Trapeza Ty-

The six largest caves (Psychro Cave, Skoteino Cave, Melidoni Cave, Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa), Kamares Cave, and Idaean Cave are downward sloping caves (Figs. 10.2, 10.3). Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa) is exceptional on Crete because it is a large cave with two entrances at different elevations. The connecting passage joining the upper and lower cave is also downward sloping. Phaneromeni Cave, Tylissos Cave (Trapeza Tylissou), and Hosto Nero Cave are horizontal caves. Paul Faure noted that cold, downward sloping caves were chosen over the millennia for use as places of refuge and ritual (Faure 1964, 40). Faure rightly placed all the major sacred caves of Palatial and Post-Palatial Crete in this category (Faure 1964, 40, n. 2). Indeed, caves chosen for Protopalatial and Neo-Palatial ritual are mostly cold caves with downward sloping floors. None have upward sloping floors, the type that shepherds prefer. Even though Phaneromeni Cave is a horizontal cave, it is probably not a warm cave. Its entrance is small (which would allow minimal airflow) and it is located at a relatively high elevation at 770 m. Temperatures, however, have not yet been reported from Phaneromeni Cave. The two sacred caves on Mount Ida are still not accessible throughout the year due to weather as well as snow accumulations inside the cave. In fact, the Kamares Cave is frequently not accessible until early summer, while the Idaean Cave oftentimes is not fully free of snow until the end of summer. Faure further observed that winter celebrations in modern cave chapels are all held in horizontally situated caves (Faure 1964, 39 and n. 4). Since horizontal caves are comfortable for modern worship, perhaps in Antiquity, such caves may also have been preferred for winter rituals. The Proto-Palatial and NeoPalatial preference for downward sloping caves (cold and dry in winter) suggests that (non funerary) rituals likely

178

DEFINING BRONZE AGE RITUAL CAVES IN CRETE lissou) has an eastern (east-southeast) orientation and a simple shape that allows some indirect sunlight to penetrate its small entrance, particularly in the morning (cf. Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 39). All of the cave’s recesses as well as the back of the cave are dark. Ritual activities in the upper cave at Psychro would have been held in dimmer internal natural light than today, since the entrance was altered by roof collapse after Antiquity. The chamber in the bottom of the lower Cave at Psychro, where so many bronzes were deposited, is almost completely dark due to its distance from the opening and the stricture of the cave half way down the descent (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 12, fig. 4). Excavation of both Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa) (upper chamber) and Phaneromeni Cave were limited to the entrance area, which may have received direct sunlight. Because of the east facing entrance of the Idaean Cave, diffuse sunlight penetrates most of the lower cave, but direct light illumination penetrates only during early morning hours during summer months (Sakellarakis 1996a, 174). Furthermore, direct sunlight does not reach the north end of the north chamber, where Yannis Sakellarakis found a deposit of Neo-Palatial bronzes and other items (Mylonas 1985, 80).

bottom of the outer chamber at Kamares Cave. There is consistency in the choice of ritual locations: at or near the entrance to the deepest, darkest part of the cave (Kamares Cave, Skoteino Cave, Melidoni Cave, and Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa) and/or in the vicinity of water pools or dripping water (at all caves except Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa) where details of the relationships are unknown). Proto-Palatial And Neo-Palatial Sacred Caves: Ritual Activities Involving Pottery Vessels The Skoteino Cave assemblage (currently being prepared for publication as a co-edited volume by Kanta and the author, see Tyree, Kanta, and Robinson 2008, 179-182) provides additional interpretations on possible ritual actions in sacred caves. Two ritual activities at Skoteino Cave have been recently interpreted, although their exact purpose is unknown. The first involves liquids (cf. Peatfield 1995, 217, 221-224), using pedestalled chalikes and “communion cups” (Tyree et al. 2007). Those with pierced bottoms belong to a class of cup rhyta that may have been used for libations by releasing a gradual flow of liquid (Koehl 2006, 282, 334). Chalikes and “communion cups” occur in abundance only at another sanctuary, the sanctuary at Syme in the mountains of southeast Crete (Lebessi 1985, 277-278; Kanta 1991, 487-488). Several fragments from Psychro Cave may also be “communion cups”, judging from published photographs. These include a rim fragment and several detached cup appliqués (see Hogarth 1899-1900, 102, fig. 29; Watrous 1996, 37, no. 70, pls. 10g, 18c and pls. 15g, 15h, 16e, 20d).

The ritual setting in sacred caves appears to be the room chosen and all its attributes rather than any single feature, as none has so far been identified in any sacred cave (Fig. 10.4). At Skoteino Cave and Melidoni Cave, ritual activity took place in a small, secluded, or semi secluded chamber at the edge of the descent to the deepest and darkest parts of the cave. At Hosto Nero Cave, the focus was a dark and very small, secluded chamber, located at the end of a low, narrow passageway. One to several pools of water occurs in the chamber depending upon the season. At Kamares Cave, the larger, outer chamber was the primary focus, especially the dark area near the entrance to the inner cave. The pitch-dark inner cave may have provided another focus, particularly the pool of water in its lowest reaches. At the Idaean Cave, the entire lower cave may have been used, including a small recess in its darker, north chamber. In the large, deep and dark lower Cave at Psychro, the focus was the speleothems and large pool of water. Most frequently, rituals took place in the presence of both pools of water and spectacular speleothems (at Psychro Cave, Melidoni Cave, Tylissos Cave (Trapeza Tylissou), Phaneromeni Cave, Hosto Nero Cave). Faure (1964, 85-86; 1972, 414-419) and Rutkowski and Nowicki (1996, 23, 79-80 with references) have written extensively regarding the placement of objects near water filled hollows and pools of water.

The second activity involves the cooking or heating of unknown substance(s) in tripod cooking pots. Tripod cooking pots, known from peak sanctuaries (see Jones 1999, 10), have only recently been identified from caves: Melidoni Cave, Skoteino Cave, and Kamares Cave [Tzedakis and Gavrilaki 1995, 890-891, figs. 3-9; Van de Moortel 2006, 84-85; Tyree and Kanta Piazza Armerina, Sicily, unpublished (to-date) 2005 conference paper]. The practice of taking cooking pots to sacred caves began in the Proto-Palatial period at Kamares Cave (Van de Moortel 2006, 84-85) and in the Neo-Palatial period at Skoteino Cave (Tyree, Kanta, and Robinson 2008, 180182) and perhaps at Melidoni Cave (judging from preliminary reports, Tzedakis and Gavrilaki 1995, 890-891). At all three caves, the tripod cooking pots were found in black soil, which contained charcoal at Skoteino Cave. At both Skoteino Cave and Melidoni Cave, the tripod cooking pots were found in a semi-secluded chamber deep in the cave. At Kamares Cave, Protopalatial cooking pots were found in the lower reaches of the outer chamber (Van de Moortel 2006, 84). A few Neo-Palatial tripod cooking pots were also identified from Kamares Cave. The presence of ashy, black earth in which the cooking pottery was found at all three caves, as well as burning on the Skoteino pots and evidence of use and wear on the Kamares cooking pots, suggests that the cooking and/or heating took place inside the cave (Van de Moortel 2006, 84; Tyree, Kanta, and Robinson 2008, 180).

Although there is no persistent pool of water at the Idaean Cave, water drips incessantly into the central chamber. At Skoteino Cave, rituals took place in the presence of spectacular and unusually shaped speleothems including a flat topped stalagmite that may have been considered an altar (Fig. 10.4) (Tyree et al. 2011, 722). At both Skoteino Cave and Melidoni Cave, the focus may have been a fire used for heating, cooking, and/or lighting. Perhaps there may have been a comparable relationship to fires in the

179

LOETA TYREE At Kamares Cave, the high proportion of pouring vessels (jugs and spouted jars) to cups and bowls (1:3.75) indicates that pouring liquids was an important Protopalatial ritual activity as in contemporary funerary rituals (Van de Moortel 2006, 83 with reference to Cultraro 2000). The components of the pottery assemblage at Kamares Cave change in the Neo-Palatial period, showing an equal number of cups/bowls to pouring vessels (Van de Moortel 2006, 85). Neo-Palatial cooking vessels at Skoteino Cave suggest a ritual rather than a practical function based upon the abundance and smaller sizes of tripod cooking pots in comparison to household assemblages, as well as the rarity of cooking trays and dishes (Tyree, Kanta, and Robinson 2008, 181-182). Even though they form part of a large Neo-Palatial pottery assemblage, the cup and pouring vessel component of the assemblage is considerable, with approximately 2000 cups (Tyree, Kanta, and Robinson 2008, 180). At Melidoni Cave, in addition to cooking pots the Neo-Palatial assemblage consists primarily of cups, bowls, and jugs (Tzedakis and Gavrilaki 1995, 891, pls. 3-5, 6b, 6c, 7, 8). The Psychro Caves’ upper cave assemblage also includes a large number of cups and jugs (Watrous 1996, 48-49). Thus, at Psychro Cave, Melidoni Cave, Skoteino Cave, Idaean Cave, and Kamares Cave, there are indications that, in addition to ritual cooking or heating over fires inside the cave, pouring, drinking, and/or eating activities took place in these caves during the Proto-Palatial and Neo-Palatial periods. These rituals largely involved the use of ordinary pottery vessels, such as tripod cooking pots, cups, etc., providing evidence for a central role for ordinary ceramic vessels in Proto-Palatial and/or Neo-Palatial cave ritual.

sion above (Marinatos 1935, 218; 1962, 92). Although the Kamares Cave was in use primarily during the ProtoPalatial period, its enormous assemblage, with more than 16,000 fragments (Van de Moortel 2006, 79), suggests that the ritual need for large quantities of pottery, or frequent deposition of smaller quantities, started as early as the Proto-Palatial period. The large jars and pithoi from all the caves mentioned above would have been difficult and heavy items to carry over long distances. Although some pots, like tripod cooking pots, are generally not large, they are bulky and would not have been an easy item to transport (Robinson 2011, 703-704). Wide mouthed jars sealed with large ceramic lids would have been another bulky item. Despite the fact that there is very little information about the quantity of Neolithic and Pre-Palatial pottery assemblages from caves, it is conceivable that a relationship existed between the presence of large quantities of ProtoPalatial and Neo-Palatial pottery at sacred caves and an approximately coinciding event, the beginning of the palatial system at Phaistos. Hauling large pots up steep mountain slopes to a cave would have required a considerable amount of work, especially to those caves many hours walk up steep slopes from the nearest settlement (Kamares Cave and Idaean Cave). Their transport would require considerable organization. The fact that the major use of Kamares Cave in Middle Minoan IB (Van de Moortel 2006, 81) coincides with the time of the establishment of the first palace at Phaistos, raises the possibility that the ruling elite may have undertaken or assisted in arrangements for the transportation of items for ritual use at the cave. Transport up the mountain could have been assisted by pack animals, such as donkeys (Equidae), that were introduced into the island possibly by the Neolithic period (Rackham and Moody 1996, 75). Fitton (2002, 19) suggests that pack animals were not introduced to the island until the Middle Bronze Age (the Protopalatial period). It is possible that the presence of abundant pottery in sacred caves is related to the use of pack animals. Whether large and/or bulky pots were carried by foot or animal, the difficulty of getting such items to and into a cave further highlights the importance of pottery and ritual activities within Protopalatial and Neo-Palatial sacred caves.

A considerable number of Neo-Palatial transport and storage vessels, presumably for taking supplies to and storing them in the cave, have been reported. At Skoteino Cave, there are a large number of Neo-Palatial jars (including amphorai with an oval mouth for pouring their liquid contents), narrow necked jars, and a few pithoi (that could have been used for storing water). Additionally, there is a notable number of basins and bucket shaped vessels, suggesting that these had a special function in the cave, likely for food and/or drink preparation (Tyree, Kanta and Robinson 2008, 182). Jars were reported among the ceramic vessels found in considerable quantities at Melidoni Cave. Neo-Palatial jars and pithoi are also reported from Psychro Cave (Watrous 1996, 48). Finds at Kamares Cave provide an idea of the actual numbers of large vessels involved in presumed cave ritual use (Van de Moortel 2006, 83-84). Approximately 275 jars, some 210 with wide mouths closed by large ceramic lids, were identified along with approximately 100-200 lids for the wide mouth variety (cf. Dawkins and Laistner 1912-1913, 27-28, fig. 6). Their wide necks suggest the transport of food. In addition, there are approximately 40 narrow necked jars as well as approximately 50 pithoi (neck type not specified), five of which were very large.

Lustral Basins: “Caves Brought Into The House”? Marinatos held the opinion that Minoan lustral basins (a sunken “adyton”), with their L-shaped stairs leading down to a small, rectangular room, could represent an elaborate imitation of a cave (Marinatos 1941, 130). The name lustral basin was coined by Sir Arthur Evans, who supposed that those in official rooms were used for lustration, while those in residential areas were bathing facilities (Evans 1921-1935, I, 405-422). James Walter Graham held the opinion that all lustral basins were bathrooms (Graham 1987, 256). Their key features are their below floor level situation, their gypsum slab linings, and the lack of water drains and a source of water (Graham 1987, 99-108).

Marinatos’ observation, that caves ritually active in the Neo-Palatial period typically have an abundance of pottery, has been confirmed, as is evident from the discus-

180

DEFINING BRONZE AGE RITUAL CAVES IN CRETE There is increasing evidence for a ritual function for lustral basins (Alexiou 1972; Gesell 1985, 22-26). For example, the religious aspects of frescoes decorating basins at both Akrotiri, Thera (Marinatos 1984, 73-84) and Zakros, Crete (Gesell 1985, 25, 140, no. 135) suggest a religious function (e.g. Peatfield 1995, 224-225; Hatzaki 1996, 39; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 59). Louise A. Hitchcock described two basins in the west wing of the palace at Phaistos with a long, winding route decorated with incised double axes and red painted plaster, and proposed that such an entry indicated a “lengthy journey” and a “symbolic descent into the earth” (Hitchcock 2003, 32). Descent recalls Hebraic baths in which adolescent initiates descended to make their ritual transition to adulthood (J. Shaw, pers. comm.). An imitation of a cave thus seems plausible. Dense, moist air settling into the lustral basin would contribute to the feel of a cave.

Jones noted a contrast between cave and peak sanctuaries in the presence and number of clay figurines (Jones 1999, 6). Human and animal clay figurines occur at all peak sanctuaries and votive human limbs occur at more than half of the sites (Jones 1999, 5-7). Camilla Briault (2007, 125) notes that human and animal clay figurines constitute the “significant core of sharedness” in peak sanctuary assemblages because they occur at all peak sanctuaries in contrast to votive human limbs that are found at only half of these sites. For caves, Jones noted the absence of votive human limbs, the presence of clay human figurines (at only Psychro Cave) as well as the presence of animal figurines (at only three caves and excluding his Late Minoan III figurines). As regards clay animal figurines, there are only about a half dozen examples from Psychro Cave, none of which has been securely dated to either the Proto-Palatial or Neo-Palatial period. Even if they belong to one of these periods, they represent a minimal component of the pottery assemblage. From Kamares Cave there are only three fragmentary animal figurines of uncertain date, two solid bulls’ heads and one hollow body fragment possibly of a boar (Mariani 1895, 340, pls. 10, 20, 22, 24; Dawkins and Laistner 1912-1913, 32 n. 1; Van de Moortel 2006, 76). Their small number stands in sharp contrast to the thousands of pottery sherds from Kamares Cave. For Skoteino Cave, neither animal nor clay human figurines have been discovered among the ceramic finds from Davaras’ excavation. At Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa) a small clay bull figurine was found, dated to the NeoPalatial period on the basis of the associated pottery (Tzedakis 1970, 469; Faure 1996, 141). The only other cave from which clay animal figurines have been reported is Hosto Nero Cave, on top of Mount Juktas. Both Antonio Taramelli and Marinatos reported an unspecified number of clay animal figurines in addition to one clay male figurine (Taramelli 1899, 357; Marinatos 1950, 250). Faure suggested a Middle Minoan III date for the entire group (Faure 1964, 175 n. 6). All but the male figurine were subsequently sold and their whereabouts are no longer known. Clay human figurines from caves are nearly as scarce as clay figurines of animals. Possible examples that may belong to this period include the above mentioned male figurine from Hosto Nero Cave (H.M. SC 8558, Pendlebury 1939, 294; Faure 1964, 175-176). From Psychro Cave, there are only 6 human clay figurines that may belong to either the Proto-Palatial or Neo-Palatial period (Watrous 1996, 33 nos. 19, 21-22, 34 no. 33 and 39 nos. 98-99), as well as a shoulder fragment of a large female figure (Boardman 1961, 60 n. 2; Watrous 1996, 39, no. 97). Only one example of a votive human limb has been found in a cave: a bronze foot amulet (pendant) from Psychro Cave (Hogarth 1899-1900, 112, fig. 46; Watrous 1996, 48), which now has parallels at Hagios Georgios peak sanctuary on Kythera (Sakellarakis 1996b, 85-86, pl. 17.a , four votive feet are illustrated). Other figurines from Psychro Cave are most likely later, Late Minoan III and Post-Minoan. No clay human or animal figurines belong-

Lustral basins are widespread across Crete, in palaces and elite houses (Gesell 1985, 22; Driessen 1989-1990, 11, 13, fig. 10). Although they are a phenomenon almost exclusively of the Neo-Palatial period (Middle Minoan IIILate Minoan I), three of the 28 basins occur as early as Middle Minoan II, in the Proto-Palatial period, with two lasting until Late Minoan II-III (Post-Palatial) (Rutkowski 1986, 135; Peatfield 1995, 225; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 59, 61). The three earliest Middle Minoan II basins were constructed in, or were associated with, the three major, early palaces: Knossos palace, northwest lustral basin; Malia, Quartier Mu; Phaistos palace, Room 70 (Rutkowski 1986, 135). Their first appearance in the Proto-Palatial period and subsequence geographical spread in the Neo-Palatial period corresponds to increased use of sacred caves over that same period. Could caves have been so important in Minoan religion that an artificial version was created closer to home? Political implications are evident in the placement of lustral basins, as most of those in palaces were built in official reception or non residential areas (Gesell 1985, 23-25, 66). Proto-Palatial And Neo-Palatial Sacred Caves: Their Relationship To Contemporary Peak Sanctuaries Evidence over the past several decades for a Neo-Palatial phase at peak sanctuaries (e.g. Juktas, Kophinas, and Vrysinas) and new information from caves (e.g. Psychro Cave) have provided an impetus for two recent studies tabulating and comparing artifact types found at cave and peak sanctuaries (Watrous 1996, 92-96; Jones 1999). Indications of considerable overlap in artifact types suggest a significant degree of shared conceptual and ritual unity between cave and peak sanctuaries (Watrous 1996, 95; Jones 1999, 20-21, 39-40; cf. Dietrich 1969, 263-265, see Fig. 1 for site locations). Since Livingstone Vance Watrous and Donald W. Jones’ publications, studies of excavated ceramics from several sacred caves provide further data indicating that this presence/absence tally of artifact types overlooks the actual rarity of clay figurines from caves as well as inherent physical differences between cave and mountain top environments. A discussion of these issues follows, including the more recent data.

181

LOETA TYREE ing to either the Proto-Palatial or Neo-Palatial periods have been reported from the Idaean Cave.

Greek Orthodox chapels today. All but Phaneromeni Cave have extensive terraces or a relatively flat space in front of the cave entrance where participants could gather for activities either in the cave or for ritual feasts and other festive or ritual activities that might have taken place outside the cave.

It appears, then, that clay human and animal figurines are extremely rare at cave sanctuaries, with these very few, mostly of uncertain date, being known from only four caves [Psychro Cave, Mameloukos Cave (Mameloukou Trypa), Hosto Nero Cave, and Kamares Cave], whereas clay figurines occur at all peak sanctuaries, occasionally in the thousands; for example over 5,000 fragments at Atsipades (Morris and Peatfield 2002, 109). Accordingly, clay figurines and votive human limbs provide a sharp distinction in artifact type between cave and peak sanctuaries. This suggests that different types of ritual activity occurred where use of such figurines was significant.

At peak sanctuaries during the Proto-Palatial and NeoPalatial periods, objects were purposefully put into clefts and cracks in outcrops (Peatfield 1992, 66-67; Watrous 1996, 93). This practice seems particularly common at peak sanctuaries (Briault 2007, 136; Tournavitou 2009, 229, ns. 56-62 with recent references, especially for Juktas). Additionally, it appears that a deep chasm was sometimes chosen as a principal or subsidiary focus, being incorporated by temenos walls; for example, a chasm with a depth of at least 10 m served as a central feature at Juktas (Karetsou 1981, 138-141, 141, fig. 4, 142, fig. 5; Watrous 1996, 71), and at Petsophas a subsidiary feature was a walled crack in the rock that is only 0.5 m deep in its present state (Myres 1902-1903, 357; Rutkowski 1991, 20). It is thought that where a chasm or crack did not exist at a peak sanctuary, a shallower crevice or an artificial object, such as a pot or basket, might have replaced a deep chasm as a focal point (Nowicki 2001, 32). This hypothesis is echoed by Alan Peatfield who suggests that a jar, a baetyl, or a sacred stone may have provided a focal point within a shallow, stone line hollow at the Proto-Palatial peak sanctuary at Atsipades (Peatfield 1992, 68).

Conclusions Ritual activity in sacred caves was subterranean. Activity took place at the limits of illumination, deep in the cave rather than in or near the entrance. The caves chosen were wet, damp, and cool. Even those caves where access and passage are not difficult are not without hazards, especially when carrying items, including some means of lighting: wet and slippery spots, dripping water, speleothems, unusually shaped “concretions”, confined spaces, a limited vista, bats, spiders, and other bugs. These complexities, and thus the experience, are the opposite of those at a mountaintop where there is light, air, wind, openness, infinite vista, and a line of sight relationship between some peak sanctuaries, as well as alignment of structures with hilltops to allow astronomic observations (for Petsophas and Traostalos, see Henriksson and Blomberg 1996) and calendar regulation (Juktas, see Blomberg, Henriksson and Papathanassiou 2002).

A focus on clefts and chasms at peak sanctuaries and the overlap in some, but not all, artifact types between cave and peak sanctuaries suggests an overall conceptual unity in ritual practice, as noted above by Watrous and Jones (Watrous 1996; Jones 1999). But at the same time, inherent differences (subterranean vs ethereal) between a cave and peak as well as a significant difference in the artifact type (clay human and animal figurines that are present at all peak sanctuaries) suggest significant differences in rituals between cave and peak sanctuaries.

Cave entrances are liminal, representing a threshold between this and a subterranean world. They may also have been a barrier for exclusion, allowing some but not all participants into either the cave or the ritual area. ProtoPalatial and Neo-Palatial ritual areas tended to be rather small spaces. For example, the ritual area at Skoteino Cave is 18 m long (24 m including the secluded chamber) with a maximum width of 8.5 m. The usable floor space is less due to irregular width and the presence of three large stalagmites. At Melidoni Cave, the ritual area has a maximum dimension of 9 m by 6 m with nearly half of this space occupied by a stalagmite and a pool of water (measurements from Petrocheilou 1965, 65). If rituals within the cave were restricted, or were limited due to space, a large number of people could have been accommodated in the entrance area of most of these caves as well as outside the cave (cf. Watrous 1996, 91). Participants could have entered in turn on a rotating basis, as in

As presently known, in the Palatial Era, cave cult was not transmitted beyond Crete, although three peak sanctuaries with a Cretan type of artifact assemblage occurred on the Greek Islands and Mainland, at Hagios Georgios on Kythera, Troullos on Kea, and Apollon Maleatas on the mainland (Briault 2007, 123, 128-131). Caves offer a different ambience than mountaintops for ritual activity. Water, the substance that creates a dissolution type cave and all its distinctive features, was a significant ritual element. It is the cave’s underground environment - wet, cool, dark, and strange with unusually shaped speleothems that makes a cave unique.

182

DEFINING BRONZE AGE RITUAL CAVES IN CRETE Bibliography

Fitton, J.L. 2002. Minoans, Peoples of the Past, London.

Alexiou, S. 1972. “Περί των Mινωικών Δεξαμενών Καθαρμού,” CretChron 24, pp. 414-434.

Gavrilaki-Nikoloudaki, E. 1988. “Αρχαιολογικές Eιδήσεις 1987. Προϊστορικές και Κλασικές Αρχαιότητες. Μελιδόνι,” Κretike Εstia 2, pp. 305-307.

Betancourt, P.P. and N. Marinatos. 2000. “Συμπεράσματα,” in Το Σπήλαιο της Αμνισού: H έρευνα του 1992, P.P. Betancourt and N. Marinatos, eds. (in collaboration with Τ. Αlmbani, Κ. Palyvou, Ν. PoulouPapademetriou, S. German and S. McPherron), ArchEph 139 [2001], pp. 227-231.

Gesell, G.C. 1985. Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete, (SIMA 67), Göteborg. Georgiakakis, P., K. Paragamian, K. Foteinakis, M. Papadaki, and P. Barlas. 2006. “Τα Σπήλια Λατσίδα Βρέικου και Απολούστρες στους Πεύκους του Μακρύ Γιαλού (Λασίθι),” in Proceedings of the 2nd Cretan Speleological Symposium in Μemoriam of Eleutherios Platakis, (May 29, 2005, Herakleion, Crete, Greece), (Hellenic Speleological Society, Department of Crete), Herakleion, pp. 47-51.

Blomberg, M., G. Henriksson and M. Papathanassiou. 2002. “The Calendaric Relationship between the Minoan Peak Sanctuary on Juktas and the Palace at Knossos,” in Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations [Proceedings of the Conference of the European society for Astronomy in Culture (SEAC) and National Astronomical Meeting (JENAM), Moscow, May 23-27, 2000], T.M. Potyomkina and V.N. Obridko, eds., Moscow, pp. 81-92.

Georgoulaki, E. 1995-1996. Burial Evidence and Its Religious Connotations in Pre-Palatial and Old Palace Minoan Crete, Ph.D. diss., Université de Liège.

Boardman, J. 1961. The Cretan Collection in Oxford. The Dictaean Cave and Iron Age Crete, Oxford.

Graham, J.W. 1987. The Palaces of Crete, Princeton.

Briault, C. 2007. “Making Mountains out of Molehills in the Bronze Age Aegean: Visibility, Ritual Kits, and the Idea of a Peak Sanctuary,” WA 39, pp. 122-141.

Hatzaki, E.M. 1996. “Was the Little Palace at Knossos the ‘Little Palace’ of Knossos?”, in Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham, D. Evely, I.S. Lemos and S. Sherratt, eds., (BAR-IS 638), Oxford, pp. 34-45.

Cultraro, M. 2000. “La Brocchetta dei vivi per la Sete dei Morti. Riconsiderazione delle Camerette a Sud della Grande Tholos di Hagia Triada,” in Πεπραγμένα του 8ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, (Ηράκλειο, 9-14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996), (A2), Herakleion, pp. 309-326.

Hazzidakis, J. 1912-1913. “An Early Minoan Sacred Cave at Arkalokhori in Crete,” BSA 19, pp. 35-47. ———. 1934. Les Villas Minoennes de yilissos (translated by F. Chapouthier and R. Joly), (Études Crétoise 3), Paris.

Davaras, C. 1983. “ΚΔ΄ Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτητών. Ανασκαφικές Εργασίες. Σπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρου,” ArchDelt 38, Chron. 2, pp. 375-376.

Henriksson, G. and M. Blomberg. 1996. “Evidence for Minoan Astronomical Observations from the Peak Sanctuaries on Petsophas and Traostalos,” OpAth 21, pp. 99114.

Dawkins, R.M. and M.L.W. Laistner. 1912-1913. “The Excavation of the Kamares Cave in Crete,” BSA 19, pp. 1-34.

Hitchcock, L.A. 2003. “Understanding the Minoan Palaces,” Athena Review 3. (3), pp. 27-35.

Dietrich, B.C. 1969. “Peak Cults and Their Place in Minoan Religion,” Historia 18, pp. 257-75.

Hogarth, D.G. 1899-1900. “The Dictaean Cave. Preliminary Report,” BSA 6, pp. 94-116.

Driessen, J. 1989-1990. “The Proliferation of Minoan Palatial Architectural Style: (I) Crete,” ActaArchLov 28-29, pp. 3-23.

Jones, D.W. 1999. Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete: A Comparison of Artifacts, (SIMA-PB 156), Göteborg.

Driessen, J. and C.F. Macdonald. 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete Before and After the Santorini Eruption, (Aegaeum 17), Liège.

Kanta, A. 1991. “Cult, Continuity, and the Evidence of Pottery at the Sanctuary of Syme Viannou,” in La Transizione dal Miceneo all'Alto Archaismo. Dal Palazzo alla Città (Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, 14-19 Marzo 1988), D. Musti, A. Sacconi, L. Rocchetti, M. Rocchi, E. Scafa, L. Sportiello, and M.E. Giannotta, eds., (Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche), Rome, pp. 479-506.

Faure P. 1964. Fonctions des Cavernes Crétoises, (École Française d’Athènes, Travaux et Mémoires 14), Paris. ———. 1972. “Cultes populaires dans la Crète antique”, BCH 96, pp. 389-426. ———. 1996. Ιερά Σπήλαια της Κρήτης, Herakleion.

183

LOETA TYREE Kanta, A. and A. Tzigounaki. 2001. “The Character of the Minoan Goddess. New Evidence from the Area of Amari,” in Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., (Aegaeum 22), Liège, pp. 151-157.

Nowicki, K. 1994. “A Dark Age Refuge Centre near Pefki, East Crete,” BSA 89, pp. 235-268. ———. 2001. “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: Reassessing Their Origins,” in Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 1215 April 2000), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., (Aegaeum 22), Liège, pp. 31-37.

Karetsou, A. 1981. “The Peak Sanctuary of Mt. Juktas,” in Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 137-153.

Papadakis, N. 1983. Siteia. Fatherland of Myson and Kornaros: A Historical, Archaeological and Cultural Guide (translated by J.M. Kafetzaki), Siteia.

Koehl, R.B. 2006. Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta, (Prehistory Monographs 19), Philadelpheia.

Peatfield, A. 1992. “Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The Peak Sanctuary at Atsipadhes,” CAJ 2, pp. 59-87.

Lebessi, A. 1985. “Ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου,” Prakt, pp. 263-285.

———. 1995. “Water, Fertility and Purification in Minoan Religion,” in Klados. Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream, C. Morris, ed., (BICS Suppl. 63), pp. 217227.

Mariani, L. 1895. “Antichità Cretesi. Note sulla Ceramica Cretese. I. Vasi di Kamares,” MonAnt 6, pp. 333-342.

Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1939. The Archaeology of Crete: An Introduction, London.

Marinatos, N. 1984. Art and Religion in Thera. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Society, Athens.

Pendlebury, H.W, J.D.S. Pendlebury and M.B. MoneyCoutts. 1935-1936. “Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi, I. The Cave of Trapeza,” BSA 36, pp. 5-131.

———. 1996. “Cult by the Seashore: What Happened at Amnisos?”, in The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis, (Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Swedish Institute at Athens, 16-18 October 1992), R. Hägg, ed., Stockholm, pp. 135-139.

Petrocheilou, A. 1965. “Το Σπήλαιον Μελιδονίου Κρήτης Αρ. 41 ή Γεροντοσπηλιάς Αρ. 41,” Deltion Ellenikes Spilaiologikns Etaireias 8 (3), pp. 61-71.

Marinatos, S. 1929. “Ανασκαφαί εν Κρήτη,” Prakt pp. 94-104.

Evans, A. 1921. The Palace of Minos at Knossos (Vol. 1), The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages, London.

———. 1933. “Funde und Forschungen auf Kreta,” AA 48, pp. 287-314.

Rackham, O. and J. Moody. 1996. The Making of the ———. 1935. “Ανασκαφαί εν Κρήτη. Aρκαλοχώρι,” Prakt,Cretan pp. Landscape, Manchester and New York. 212-220. Rethemiotakis, G. 1999. “Το Nέο Μινωικό Ανάκτορο ———. 1941. “The Cult of the Cretan Caves,” The Review ofστον Re- Γαλατά Πεδιάδος και το ‘Ιερό Σπήλαιο’ ligion 5, pp. 129-136. Αρκαλοχωρίου,” in Κρήτες Θαλλασσοδρόμοι. Κύκλος Διαλέξεων, (Ιανουάριος-Απρίλιος 1996), A. Kαρέτσου, ———. 1950. “Το Μέγαρον Βαθυπέτρου,” Prakt, pp. ed., Herakleion, pp. 91-111. 242-257. Robinson, H. Lewis. 2011. “Regional Ceramic Fabrics: ———. 1962. “Zur Frage der Grotte von Arkalochori,” Kadmos Examples from Pediada,” in Πεπραγμένα 10ου Διεθνούς 1, pp. 87-94. Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, (A2), (Hania, 1-8 October 2006), M. Aνδρεαδάκη-Βλαζάκη and E. Παπαδοπούλου, Morris, C. and A. Peatfield. 2002. “Feeling Through the eds., Hania, pp. 703-712. Body: Gesture in Cretan Bronze Age Religion,” Thinking Through the Body. Archaeologies of Corporeality, Y. Rutkowski, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik and S. Tarlow, eds., New York Haven and London. and London, pp. 105-120. ———. 1991. Petsophas. A Cretan Peak Sanctuary, Mylonas, G.E. 1985. “Ανασκαφαί. Ιδαίον Άντρον,” Er(Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology gon [1986], pp. 78-83. and Civilization 1.1), Warsaw. Myres, J.L. 1902-1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro. II. The Sanctuary-Site of Petsofas,” BSA 9, pp. 356-387.

Rutkowski, B. and K. Nowicki. 1986. “Report on Investigations in Greece. IV. Studies in 1985,” ArcheologiaWar 37, pp. 159-170.

184

DEFINING BRONZE AGE RITUAL CAVES IN CRETE Williams, eds., (Prehistory Monographs 22), Philadelpheia, pp. 277-283.

Rutkowski, B. and K. Nowicki. 1996. The Psychro Cave and other Sacred Grottoes in Crete, (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilization 2.1), Warsaw.

Tyree, Ε.L., A. Kanta and H. Lewis Robinson. 2008. “Evidence for Ritual Eating and Drinking: A View from Skoteino Cave,” in 12th International Aegean Conference: Dais, The Aegean Feast, (University of Melbourne, Australia. March 25-29, 2008), L.A. Hitchcock, R. Laffineur and J. Crowley, eds., Liège, pp. 179-185.

Sakellarakis, Y.A. 1996a. Digging for the Past, Athens. ———. 1996b. “Minoan Religious Influence in the Aegean: The Case of Kythera,” BSA 91, pp. 81-99.

Tyree, Ε.L., D. Sphakianakis, A. Stamos, J. Frey, M. Belidis, and S. Kamnakis. 2011. “Speleography of Skoteino: Natural Relief Formations of the Cave’s Interior, with Special Reference to Late Bronze Age Ritual Activity,” in Πεπραγμένα 10ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, (A3), M. Aνδρεαδάκη-Βλαζάκη and E. Παπαδοπούλου, eds., Hania, pp. 717-732.

Taramelli, A. 1899. “Ricerche Archeologiche Cretesi,” MonAnt 9, pp. 285-446. Tournavitou, I. 2009. “Does Size Matter? Miniature Votive Pottery in Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. The Case of Kythera,” in Festschrift for Geraldine Gesell, A.L. D’Agata and A. Van de Moortel, eds., (Hesperia Suppl. 42), Princeton, pp. 213-230.

Tzedakis, I. and I. Gavrilaki. 1995. “Η Aνασκαφή στο σπήλαιο Μελιδονίου,” in Πεπραγμένα του 7ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, (1.2), N.E. Παπαδογιαννάκης, ed., Rethymnon, pp. 887-894.

Tyree, E.L. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, Columbia. ———. 2001. “Diachronic Changes in Minoan Cave Cult”, in Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., (Aegaeum 22), Liège, pp. 39-50.

Tzedakis, I. 1970. “Αρχαιότητες και Μνηνεία Δυτικής Κρήτης. Νομός Χανίων. Ανασκαφή Σπηλαίου Περιβολίων Κυδωνίας,” ArchDelt 25 (Chron. 2), pp. 469.

———. 2006. “Minoan Sacred Caves: The Natural and Political Landscape,” in Πεπραγμένα 9ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Θ. Δετοράκης and A. Kαλοκαιρινός, eds., (Ελούντα, 1-6 Οκτωβρίου 2001), (A2), Herakleion, pp. 329-342.

Van de Moortel, A. 2006. “A Re-examination of the Pottery from the Kamares Cave,” in Pottery and Society: The Impact of Recent Studies in Minoan Pottery, Gold Medal Colloquium in Honor of Philip P. Betancourt, (104th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5 January 2003), M.H. Wiener, J.L. Warner, J. Polonsky, and E.E. Hayes, eds. with the assistance of C. McDonald, Boston, pp. 73-93.

Vagnetti, L. and P. Belli. 1978. “Characters and Problems of the Final Neolithic in Crete,” SMEA 19, pp. 125-163.

Tyree, E.L. and A. Van de Moortel. 2005. “The Kamares Cave,” in On Site. Canadian Archaeologists in Greece, Canadian Archaeological Institute at Athens, ed., Athens, pp. 69-71.

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

Tyree, Ε.L., A. Kanta and D. Sphakianakis. 2007. “The Neo-Palatial Chalice: Forms and Function in the Cave of Skoteino,” in Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw, P.P. Betancourt, M.C. Nelson and H.

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

185

LOETA TYREE

Figure 10.1. Map of Crete indicating caves, peak sanctuaries, and palaces mentioned in the Glowacki, Texas A&M University).

text.

(Map

courtesy

Kevin

Figure 10.2. Entrance to Skoteino Cave on the north central coast of Crete. An example of a large, downward sloping cave (Photo by Harriet L. Robinson).

Figure 10.3. Steep slope, Level I, Skoteino Cave (Photo by Loeta Tyree)

186

DEFINING BRONZE AGE RITUAL CAVES IN CRETE

Figure 10.4. Entrance (where person standing) to the semisecluded chamber, Level II, Skoteino Cave. A flat-topped (altar-like) stalagmite is visible beyond the fallen stalactite touched by the person (Photo by Konstantina Aretaki).

187

NIKOLAOS STAMPOLIDIS AND ANTONIS KOTSONAS period (1st century B.C.-5th century A.D.) remain limited (Sporn 2002, 346-348, 401; also, Alcock 2002, 99-131 with several insightful points on the Cretan cave sanctuaries of the Roman period). These publications make redundant any full review of Cretan sanctuaries of the historical period, which would in any case be impossible in a short paper. It is perhaps indicative that the finds from the early excavations in the Psychro Cave have warranted as many as three monographs (Boardman 1961; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Watrous 1996). Instead, emphasis is here given to specific themes which have hitherto received inadequate treatment. These themes include the long history and varied problems of Cretan cave archaeology; the diverse geographical and political contexts of select cave sanctuaries from the Early Iron Age to the Roman period (11th century B.C. - 5th century A.D.); and the shifting attitudes identified in dedicatory practices.

11 Cretan Caves Sanctuaries OF The Early Iron Age To The Roman Period Nikolaos Stampolidis and Antonis Kotsonas Introduction* The geomorphological properties of the Cretan landscape, including the nature of the rocks and their tectonic structure, allow water to penetrate and gradually dissolve soft stones (Faure 1964, 19-49; Platakis 1973, 9-32; Rackham and Moody 1996, 24-25; Wallace 2010, 32). This process has created innumerable karst formations, most notably caves, the number of which is estimated to range from 2,000 to over 3,500 [Rutkowski 1972, 40 (2,000 examples); Platakis 1973, 10 (3,305 examples); Rutkowski 1986, 9, (2,000 examples); Simitzis 1993, 119 (over 3,500 examples)]. Because of this plethora of karst formations, Crete has been called the land of the caves (Platakis 1973, 9). The term cave is here used to refer to horizontal caves, as well as varathra and rockshelters (for a glossary of basic speleological terms, see Wickens 1986, 247-250; Tyree 2006, 330). It is indicative that the number of 281 caves in the Mylopotamos district of Crete (Simitzis 1993, 119; Aretaki, Simitzis and Stratidakis 2006, 38) is comparable to the so-called large number of caves identified in Attika (300) (Wickens 1986, 3), even though the total area of the former district is five times smaller than that of the latter [for the size of the Mylopotamos area, see Bennet 1990, 206, table 4, for Attika, see Der neue Pauly 2 (1997), s.v. Attika, 234].

History And Problems Of Cave Archaeology In Crete References to Cretan caves abound in ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine literature. These references are primarily concerned with the role of these caves - mostly the Idaean and Dictaean (Platakis 1973, 165-203, the location of the Dictaean Cave mentioned by ancient sources is uncertain, see Watrous 1996, 18-19) Caves (for all Cretan locations mentioned see Fig. 11.1) - in the mythology of Zeus. Shorter notes on the Cretan caves and their mythology also occur in Venetian documents of the 14th to 17th century A.D., in a period, during a considerable part of which Crete was ruled by Venice (Platakis 1973, 351390; Tsiknakis 2006). These documents suggest that caves were a major attraction for travelers who visited the island from the 15th century to the third quarter of the 19th century A.D. (Platakis 1973, 206-351; Sakellarakis 1987, 240-241; Palioura 2006, 238-240; Tsiknakis 2006).

By the onset of the period discussed in this paper, around 1100 B.C., cult had been practiced in Cretan caves for one and possibly more millennia (Tyree 2001, 39-40; Wallace 2010, 42-43, 45). Cult in the Idaean Cave probably goes back to the 3rd millennium (Vasilakis 2006) or even earlier (Manteli 2006). As is often the case in the archaeology of Crete, scholarship has been preoccupied with the caves of the Bronze Age (Minoan period). Cave sanctuaries with later activity have, however, also attracted considerable attention and there are recent publications which review the island’s cave sanctuaries from the Early Iron Age to the Archaic period (11th-6th century B.C.) [Prent 2005, 200-209, 554-610 (with sporadic references in catalogues A, part 2 and B, part 2)], as well as from the Classical and Hellenistic periods (5th-2nd century B.C.) [Sporn 2002, 346-348, 401 (with sporadic references in the gazetteer of the book’s part A), Sporn also refers to the Roman finds from the cave sanctuaries]. On the contrary, studies on the use of the Cretan caves in the Roman

The first archaeological explorations of Cretan caves commenced in the last quarter of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century A.D. (Fig. 11.2) (Platakis 1973, 390-393; Tyree 1974, 1; Watrous 1996, 17, 23-25). These explorations, which were carried out by Greek, Italian, British and French pioneers, involved intensive excavation and extensive coverage of the caves known at the time. Subsequently, international interest was directed toward other Cretan monuments, particularly the Minoan palaces of the Bronze Age, and the exploration of caves was largely left to Greek archaeologists [Tyree 1974, 2; Sakellarakis 1987, 244, only the finds from the Idaean Cave were published at the time (Halbherr and Orsi 1888)]. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Cretan cave archaeology attracted renewed international attention in the form of synthetic works (Tyree 1974, 2-3; Boardman 1961; Willetts 1962, 141-147). The production of such works dwindled thereafter (references are collected in Watrous 1996, 24-25), to recover with a series of publications which appeared in 1996 (Faure 1996; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Watrous 1996, later publications include Jones 1999; Tyree 2001). Despite the ebb and flow of publications on the subject, fieldwork in Cretan caves has been very limited in the last decades.

                                                             *

The authors are grateful to the late Yannis Sakellarakis for permission to reproduce Figs. 11.4, 11.5 and to Nota Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki for permission to reproduce Fig. 11.6. Thanks are also due to the British School at Athens for permission to reproduce the previously unpublished Fig. 11.2. Fig. 11.1, 11.3 are by Antonis Kotsonas. In the original format of the text all references were given in footnotes.

188

CRETAN CAVES SANCTUARIES OF THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE ROMAN PERIOD The archaeological exploration of Cretan caves is faced with a number of shortcomings (Boardman 1961; Faure 1964; Rutkowski 1972; Tyree 1974, see Rutkowski 1972, 41-44; Tyree 1974, 4; Rutkowski 1986, 8-11; Watrous 1996, 95; Prent 2005, 155), which also obstruct reviews like the present one. Some of these shortcomings regularly occur in cave archaeology of other regions as well; others are, however, largely peculiar to Crete. In general, the archaeological exploration of caves depends on their accessibility, including the form and size of the mouth and interior, as well as the stability of the roof and walls (see, e.g., the eloquent descriptions and illustrations in Sakellarakis 1987, 256, figs. 13, 14). Related conditions, such as the cave’s permeability in water and snow are important for both the progress of fieldwork and the preservation of some classes of archaeological finds. Digging, for example, in the water pool of the lower chamber at Psychro Cave (Faure 1996; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Watrous 1996, 18) or the snow covered interior of the Idaean Cave (Sakellarakis 1987, 256, 259; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2011, 77, 125) proved particularly arduous and time-consuming.

nowadays blocked. Nonetheless, the Psychro Cave is open to the public and has developed into a major tourist attraction drawing some 800 visitors during the summer days (Wallace 2005, 60). No Cretan cave site has been fully excavated despite the advantages offered by a closed, protected context of fairly limited size. This also applies to the Psychro Cave, which has been explored much more thoroughly than other Cretan caves (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 11; Watrous 1996, 18). Many sites have been only explored by trial trenches, while surface finds are the only source of information for others. Several Cretan caves were excavated without proper methodology or sophisticated recording systems. It is worth recalling, for example, the negative impression of Stephanos Koumanoudis, then director of the Greek Archaeological Society, of the excavation method employed by Federico Halbherr in his fieldwork in the Idaean Cave in the end of the 19th century A.D.. (Sakellarakis 1998, 51; also, Sakellarakis 1987, 243 on the selectivity in the recovery of finds from the early excavations, see Sakellarakis 1987, 246). Another case in point is provided by David Hogarth’s excavation at Psychro Cave, which involved the use of dynamite, and the hasty collection of finds from that cave’s lower grotto (see mostly Watrous 1996, 17-18). The eventual refinement of excavation techniques is attested by the work of the late Yannis Sakellarakis in the Idaean Cave, which involved grid plans, distribution maps and documentation of the stratigraphy (Fig. 11.4) [for Sakellarakis’ excavation method, see Sakellarakis 1987, 246-247, fig. 7; 1988, 192 and figs. 4, 24, 31; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 2011, 73, 119-135, for earlier, stratigraphic excavations at the Inatos Cave, see Platon 2011, 19-201].

Disturbed stratigraphy is another problem that pervades the exploration of Cretan, and other, caves [Bailey and Galanidou 2009, undisturbed strata have been identified in the Idaean Cave (Sakellarakis 1987, 244, 246)]. This is mostly due to the long period of use of these sites, but also to other anthropogenic, as well as geophysical factors, which cause intrusion of archaeological material into lower layers. Animals may also disturb the stratigraphic record. This problem is most acute in the case of Crete, where caves often serve as shelters for flocks of sheep and goats. Furthermore, damage was caused on some Cretan cave sanctuaries after the establishment of Christianity (Rutkowski 1986, 51; Faure 1996, 210). The later introduction of Christian cults in caves which were also sacred in Antiquity (twenty four cases are mentioned in Faure 1996, 202) disturbed ancient remains and occasionally, as in the case of the sanctuary at Patsos Cave, brought about the erection of small chapels (Fig. 11.3). The interior of some Cretan caves was also spoiled in Medieval and later times. Inscriptions incised on the walls of the Melidoni Cave document that the site was popular with Cretan and foreign visitors in this long period (Tzifopoulos and Litinas 2009; Tzifopoulos and Litinas forthcoming). In the 19th century A.D., this cave was used by Cretans fighting for independence against the Ottoman Turks who were then ruling the island (Faure 1964, 204-208; Platakis 1973, 205, 285-287, 323). “Unexpected” guests in the turbulent years of World War II are also known to have caused damage in Cretan caves (Faure 1964, 208-210; 1996, 21-22, 176-177, 210). Lastly, plundering has been practiced in Cretan caves since the end of the 19th century A.D., [e.g.: Halbherr and Orsi 1888, 1-3 (Idaean Cave); Sakellarakis 1987, 241-242, 259; 1998, 25, 33 (Idaean Cave); Platon 2011, 16-17 (Inatos Cave); Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2011, 99-104 (Idaean Cave)], if not earlier. This is the main reason why access to the interior of most sites is

Perhaps the greatest impediment in Cretan cave archaeology is the near absolute paucity of final publications. Most primary literature available is limited to brief excavation reports of preliminary character. Selective, but richly illustrated catalogues of objects are available for few sites [Halbherr and Orsi 1888 (Idaean Cave); Boardman 1961 (Psychro Cave); Watrous 1996 (Psychro Cave); Kourou and Karetsou 1994 (Patsos Cave); Kanta and Davaras 2011 (Inatos Cave); Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2011 (Idaean Cave)], while longer studies are extremely rare (an exception being Sapouna 1998). Publication is of paramount importance not only for past research; it is equally important for the regeneration of archaeological interest in the Cretan caves and the launching of new fieldwork. It is time for new, interdisciplinary approaches to fieldwork, with state-of-the-art techniques, such as those lately applied in cave archaeology of other regions of the Mediterranean and beyond (Chamberlain et al. 2000; Bailey and Galanidou 2009, 215-216). For example, subsurface prospection can contribute to the discovery and identification of caves, which are recorded in ancient literature but remain unknown [e.g., the Dictaean Cave is known from written sources, but remains unidentified, see Watrous 1996, 18-19, the same perhaps applies to Homer’s Cave of Amnissos (Cave of Eileithyia), see Betancourt and Marinatos 2000,

189

NIKOLAOS STAMPOLIDIS AND ANTONIS KOTSONAS 180, 235-236]; or lead to the detection of caves with fairly undisturbed archaeological record, suitable for the detailed study of taphonomic reconstruction and anthropogenic sedimentation.

Although literature often focuses on sacred caves, other use of caves is also documented in Crete during the period in question. Some Cretan caves, located mostly in the western half of the island, show scattered habitation remains and probably served as temporary shelters (Sjögren 2003, 43-44, 48). Conversely, the use of caves for burial is commonly manifested only in east Crete (east of the Isthmus of Ierapetra) (Tsipopoulou 2005, 193-194, 221, 233-234, 239, 313, for earlier burial use of caves, see Tyree 2006, 329-331). It is perhaps no coincidence that sacred caves are extremely rare in this part of the island (Faure 1964, 97; Watrous 1996, 19, 75, see the maps in Tyree 1974, 67, 117, 119, 149, for reference to the two possible cases located east of Psychro Cave, see Tyree 1974, 229, see also the map in Faure 1996, 157 and 159166, where the identification of caves nos. 54-58 as sanctuaries is insecure). Sacred caves are also missing from the far west of Crete (west of Kydonia) (for map, see Faure 1996, 54 and 176-190, where the identification of caves nos. 64-70 as sanctuaries is insecure), where, however, archaeological exploration has been very limited. Hence, on present evidence, cave sanctuaries of the Early Iron Age to the Roman period occur over most of Crete, but remain rare on the eastern and western ends of the island (for the narrower geographical distribution of cave sanctuaries in earlier times, see Tyree 2001, pls. IX.a, IX.b).

Cretan Caves And Their Identification As Sanctuaries The identification of a cave used in Antiquity as a sanctuary is not straightforward. Despite this, several gazetteers of Cretan cave sanctuaries have been compiled in the last five decades (see, e.g., Faure 1964, 81-197; Tyree 1974, 6-63, 216-229; Faure 1996; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996). Paul Faure originally counted 25 certain and 21 possible cases of Cretan sacred caves of the Prehistoric to Roman period (Faure 1964, 81-189). More recently, Faure published a catalogue citing 53 certain and 17 possible cases (Faure 1996). Very different is the estimate by Loeta Tyree, who referred to 19 certain and 13 possible cases (Tyree 1974, 167). Bogdan Rutkowski originally listed 15 to 17 certain and 9 to 10 probable cases of Minoan cave sanctuaries (Rutkowski 1972, 40, 151); later 16 and 20 examples respectively (Rutkowski 1986, 9, 6871) and more recently 12 certain and 23 probable or possible cases (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, for criticism, see Jones 1999, 4 n. 4). Comparable estimates referring exclusively to caves of the historical period are largely missing, but Mieke Prent refers to a minimum of 10 sacred caves used in the Early Iron Age (Prent 2005, 154170, 311-342).

Geographical And Political Landscapes: Stability And Change

The notable range in these estimates clearly depends to the progress of fieldwork and other research over time. It is, however, also indicative of the subjectivity involved in the assessment of the primary evidence for cult and the lack of any established set of formal criteria for the identification of a cave as a sanctuary (for theoretical considerations in determining the use of a cave and the range of cave use, see Wickens 1986, 61-86, for the identification of sanctuaries in general see Prent 2005, 12-26). The Cretan sacred caves have hardly produced any definite cult images (Tyree 2001, 49; Prent 2005, 208 and for a possible exception, see 431), even if specific stalagmites have occasionally been considered as such (see mostly Faure 1964; 1996, also, Rutkowski 1972, 129-133; 1986, 50-52, against the identification of stalagmites as cult images, see Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 16, ns. 20, 79). Accordingly, scholars like those mentioned above have based their estimates on other, varied criteria [Rutkowski (1972, 42-43; 1986, 10; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 45) has repeatedly made relevant points, Tyree (1974, 6) refers to architecture and cult objects, while Faure (1996, 16) mentions a set of seven criteria], hardly commenting, however, on the applicability of these criteria to each cave discussed (Watrous 1996, 20-22 is a notable exception). As a result, the identification of sacred caves often retracts to empirical assumptions, occasionally based on written testimonies of the Hellenistic and Roman periods (late 4th century B.C. - 5th century A.D.). Because of these uncertainties, we here focus on caves which are unambiguously considered to have been sacred from the Early Iron Age to the Roman period (11th century B.C. - 5th century A.D.), or for a part of this long period.

The Cretan caves which were used for cultic purposes during the period in question are characterized by varied geography and geomorphology. They range from large, deep caves (Fig. 11.5) with several chambers to shallow, well lit caverns and rockshelters (Fig. 11.3). Only in the Classical period is a consistent preference for complex karst formation identifiable (Tyree 1974, 169; Prent 2005, 200). Some caves display impressive interiors, with many stalactites and stalagmites (Rutkowski 1972, 129-133, 146; 1986, 50-52) or water pools (Rutkowski 1972, 133134; 1986, 53). A spring is located inside the Inatos Cave (Faure 1964, 90; Papasavvas 2003, 72) and others lie by the Idaean Cave (Prent 2005, 159) and at the Patsos Cave (Kourou and Karetsou 1994, 83). The geographical setting of the Cretan sacred caves is also diverse and their locations do not conform to any consistent pattern. For example, the Inatos Cave lies only few meters off the coastline of south-central Crete, at around sea level (Faure 1964, 90; Papasavvas 2003, 72; Platon 2011, 16), while the Amnissos Cave is only slightly further inland on the opposite coast of Crete. On the contary, the Idaean and Psychro Caves are located on highland plateaus and the elevation of the former site (circa 1500 m) is taken to be one of the highest in the world for an archaeological location (Sakellarakis 1987, 239). The Nida Plateau, located by the Idaean Cave, was, and still is, largely uninhabited (Prent 2005, 159), but the Lasithi Plateau, which lies by Psychro Cave, was well populated

190

CRETAN CAVES SANCTUARIES OF THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE ROMAN PERIOD through much of Antiquity (Watrous 1982). Likewise, the Patsos Cave, in the west-central part of Crete, is located in a gorge traversed by a stream and lies close to a natural artery which connects the northern and southern coasts of the island (Prent 2005, 156).

Changes in settlement configurations and the political landscape in general are often thought to have affected cave sanctuaries. Nonetheless, cult persisted in a number of them, including the Idaean Cave, Psychro Cave, Patsos Cave, Phaneromeni Cave and Inatos Cave, in the transition from the Bronze to the Early Iron Age (1200-1000 B.C.), despite the serious disruption which affected the island’s settlement pattern at the time (Prent 2005, 311; Wallace 2010, 136-137, on Inatos see Papasavvas 2003, 72-76; Kanta and Davaras 2011, also Prent 2005, 332, for another opinion, see Tyree 1974, 146). Continuity of cult has not been confirmed for many other sacred caves, but this mostly involves sites which have attracted little fieldwork and/or publication. It therefore appears that the disruption of settlement pattern did not have any grave impact on cave sanctuaries. Some scholars even assume that the disruption perhaps brought people into closer proximity to these sites (Prent 2005, 204-205).

All major and nearly all minor Cretan cave sanctuaries of the Early Iron Age to the Roman period were lying outside the confines of contemporary settlements [Sjögren 2003, 56-57 (8-6th century B.C.)]. Although their physical geography remained unchanged throughout the period in question (ceiling collapse is, however, thought to have stopped the cult inside the Arkalochori Cave and the lower chamber of Psychro Cave, see Prent 2005, 166, 339), the political landscape of the areas they occupied faced diverse, shifting trajectories. These trajectories often affected the development of cult in caves, as is evident in the diachronic assessment which follows. Caves which show modest votive assemblages (e.g., the Amnissos Cave throughout the period in question (Betancourt and Marinatos 2000, especially 234) or the Phaneromeni Cave in the Early Iron Age (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 35; Prent 2005, 557-559) are regularly considered to be rural cult places serving a neighboring settlement. A regional appeal is assumed for sites like the Patsos Cave (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 42-44; Prent 2005, 606-608) and the Psychro Cave (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 19; Watrous 1996, 100, 103; Prent 2005, 608-610), which attracted rich and more varied offerings, but did not produce any set of large bronzes, jewellery and exotic objects. Interregional functions are widely assumed for the Idaean Cave for much of the period in question on the basis of the quality and quantity of its finds, as well as written evidence of Classical to Roman date [Prent 2005, 559-604 (Early Iron Age); Sporn 2002, 218-223 (Classical-Hellenistic); Sapouna 1998 (Roman)]. This consensus is challenged by the argument of Hartmut Matthäus which involves that the large bronzes found in the cave in the Early Iron Age largely derived from Knossos (Matthäus 2000, 541-542, for iconographic correspondences between ceramic and metal finds from Knossos and the Idaean Cave, see Papalardo 2011). The present authors have elsewhere questioned this view and have argued that the distribution of similar finds in sites surrounding Mount Ida suggests that the bronzes derived from several communities (Stampolidis and Kotsonas 2006, 347-349; see also Lagogianni-Georgakarakou 2003, 8-9; Kotsonas 2005, 342-343; Prent 2005, 567-568; Stampolidis 2005-2006; Stampolidis 2007; Chaniotis 2009, 62-63; Stampolidis 2011). Lately, more balanced positions have been expressed on this matter [Matthäus 2011, 125 suggests a shift of power to Gortyn or some other site in the 7th century B.C.), 129 (insisting on Knossos, but also noting that other sites had links with the cave), also, Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2011, 151, 163, 165, 168 (referring to Knossos, but also another, “secondary” site, possibly Axos], but the issue will remain unsettled as long as the pottery (the only class of early finds the specific provenance of which can be established not only on stylistic, but also on analytical grounds) from the cave remains unknown.

Major socio-political developments of later periods, particularly the expansion of the Cretan city-states, exercised a more tangible impact on cave sanctuaries. One of us has previously argued that the 7th century B.C. revival of the cult in Melidoni Cave is associated with the territorial expansion of Eleutherna (rather than that of Axos or Grivila) [Kotsonas 2005, 40, 342 (with references to the excavations, on which see mostly Tzedakis and Gavrilaki 1995)]. The identification of few Proto-Archaic figurines from Axos in Melidoni Cave (Sporn 2002, 232; Kephalidou 2006, 244) is insufficient evidence for any strong link between the two sites (for the settlement of Grivila, which lies close to Melidoni Cave and flourished in the transition from the Bronze to the Early Iron Age, but probably declined thereafter and can therefore not be convincingly credited with the revival of the cult in Melidoni Cave, see Kotsonas 2005, 39-40). Corroborating evidence for this cultic, as much as political link can perhaps be found in a recently published, Roman inscription from the cave which records that almost all inhabitants of Eleutherna did a pilgrimage at Melidoni (Tzifopoulos 2011, 81-84). In contrast, the territorial expansion of Lyktos in the Archaic period is assumed to have caused a serious population decline in the Lasithi Plateau, which is concurrent with the demise of the cult in the Psychro Cave (Watrous 1982, 21-23, 62; 1996, 103). On the whole, the rise and consolidation of power of Cretan poleis (Kotsonas 2002) in the Archaic and Classical periods is concurrent with a serious decline of extra urban sanctuaries, including cave sanctuaries [Tyree 1974, 138, 143, 147-150; Watrous 1996, 108, 111; Alcock 2002, 114; Sporn 2002, 370-371, Tyree (1974, 138, 143) identifies sufficient material of the 6th century B.C. in only three caves (Psychro Cave, Amnissos Cave and Idaean Cave). The Inatos Cave should now be added to this list (Papasavvas 2003, 72-76; Kanta and Davaras 2011), the brevity of which is to some extent due to the low visibility of the material culture of Crete in the 6 th century B.C. (Kotsonas 2002)]; it is even assumed that some cults were transferred to urban centers [Faure 1964, 91-92, 139; Watrous 1996, 108, 111, note, however, that Faure’s (1964, 91-92) assumption that cult at Inatos Cave stopped

191

NIKOLAOS STAMPOLIDIS AND ANTONIS KOTSONAS in the 6th century B.C. and was transferred to an urban setting is dismissed by recent work (Papasavvas 2003, 72-76; Kanta and Davaras 2011)]. Considerable activity is confirmed to have persisted only in the Idaean Cave and Inatos Cave, the two caves which attracted the richest votive offerings in earlier times (Idaean Cave, Sporn 2002, 218-223; Inatos Cave, Sporn 2002, 94-96; Papasavvas 2003, 72-76; Kanta and Davaras 2011). The cave sanctuaries which survived this demise, as well as those which revived in the Hellenistic period (most notably Phaneromeni Cave, Melidoni Cave, and Patsos Cave) (see respectively Sporn 2002, 103, 231-232, 251-252) or were first used during the Classical and Hellenistic periods (e.g., the caves in the region of Kydonia, see Sporn 2002, 272-277), are taken to have held a localized role (Tyree 1974, 149-151; Alcock 2002, 113-121). A notable exception is the Idaean Cave, the Classical and Hellenistic finds from which are, however, considerably poorer than those of earlier or later times (Sporn 2002, 219-220, references to Early Iron Age finds are collected in Kotsonas 2005, 41, n. 209; Kotsonas 2008, 30, n. 84, add mostly Matthäus 2011, for Roman finds, see Sapouna 1998; Lagoyganni-Georgakarakou 2003; Melfi 2006, 218-221).

continuity from pagan to Christian times is generally not documented and there is often a gap of 500 years to more than one millennium which separates the two (this excludes the Amnissos Cave, on which see Betancourt and Marinatos 2000, 214-231). This is because Christian cave cult was largely inspired by the tradition of monasticism of the Middle Byzantine period, particularly of the 9 th10th centuries A.D. In sum, the establishment and persistence of cult in Cretan caves of the Early Iron Age to the Roman period did not conform to any preference for their geomorphological properties and geographical setting. Conversely, the recurring restructuring of the political landscape around these sites often affected the popularity of cave cults and occasionally determined their survival. Persisting And Changing Dedicatory Practices The interior of many Cretan sacred caves is characterized by dark, thick layers of ash which are usually taken to represent the remains of sacrifice. The faunal and floral remains from these layers have generally not been studied, and discussion of cult in the caves usually focuses on the actual dedications recovered. The range of dedications found in Cretan caves provides evidence for the identification of the sites as sanctuaries and the character of the deity worshipped (particularly in the absence of cult images, on which see above), the nature of the cult, as well as the identities, concerns and aspirations of the votaries. Nonetheless, the interpretation of votive behaviour is perplexed by the variety of objects offered and the dedication of similar objects on different occasions, for different purposes and in honor of different deities (Watrous 1996, 81-82; Prent 2005, 26-33). The dedicatory practices manifested in the Cretan cave sanctuaries discussed here have received adequate treatment in two very recent publications [for the Early Iron Age, see Prent 2005 (sporadically), while for the Classical, Hellenistic and to some extent the Roman period, see Sporn 2002 (sporadically)], to which the reader is referred for many of the issues discussed. Our discussion draws from those studies, as well as from primary publications, to highlight major trends in these practices and assess their fluctuations from the Early Iron Age to the Roman period. Comparative glances on votive behaviour manifested in other Cretan sanctuaries are also introduced.

During the Roman period, cave cults became popular once more (Tyree 1974, 162; Alcock 2002, 114). The number of sacred caves visited multiplies and the volume of offerings increases. The revival and spread of cave cults following the Roman conquest is associated with a new pattern of commemoration, which involved a diminution in the power of the local past and a growth of pilgrimage sites distant from any single controlling community (Alcock 2002, 121-130). These sites attracted a larger, non local audience and served a more widely shared, non local sense of the past. This change is related to the interests of the Empire, manifested in the emperor’s choice of appropriating symbols of Zeus Cretagenes (born on Crete). Latin literature shows a notable interest in the Cretan past, especially in the mythology of Zeus, and involves several references to Cretan caves. The island’s caves were also reference points for the Pythagoreans of the Early Empire (Alcock 2002, 130-131; Di Branco 2004; Chaniotis 2006; Melfi 2006, 221-224), while the spiritual dimension of caves in general was of interest to Neo-Platonists commenting on Plato’s renowned simile (for Plato’s simile and its Cretan references, see Campese 2003, 435-451, for caves, Plato, and the Neo-Platonists, see Ousager 2004, 28, 46, 106, 234, 278-279, 284). To the educated citizens of the Empire, Cretan caves were associated with wisdom, law and learning, and one such citizen was proud to be initiated in the cult of the Idaean Cave as late as the time of Julian the Apostate (mid-4th century A.D.) (Chaniotis 1987).

The occurrence of different classes of votives in Cretan sacred caves is often period-specific. It is therefore reviewed here in accordance with a broad chronological scheme. In contrast to the variety which dominates the cult assemblages of Late Minoan cave sanctuaries (Tyree 1974, 100-106), notable homogeneity is identified in the transition from the Bronze to the Early Iron Age. Large terracotta animal figures and - to a significantly lesser extent - bronze figurines dominate the votive record from Patsos Cave, Psychro Cave and the Idaean Cave at this time and similar assemblages are known from other extra urban sanctuaries of the period (Prent 2005, 205-207). This pattern has reasonably been taken to suggest that the votives in question reflect the concerns of the votaries

The introduction of Christianity is largely concurrent with the demise of Cretan cave sanctuaries (Faure 1996, 210), even if no causal relation can be established between the two. Christian cults, introduced at varied date, have been identified in 265 Cretan caves, including 24 which had earlier hosted pagan cults (Faure 1996, 202, 210). Cult

192

CRETAN CAVES SANCTUARIES OF THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE ROMAN PERIOD Geometric to Archaic (10th – 7th century B.C.) figurines in different materials showing kourotrophic deities, heterosexual couples and pregnant females. On this basis, the deity worshipped in the cave is identified with Eileithyia, the Greek goddess of childbirth, the name of which is mentioned in a Roman inscription from Inatos (Prent 2005, 331-332; Kanta 2011, 29-32). This is the earliest case in which the deity worshipped in a Cretan sacred cave can be identified on exclusively archaeological grounds.

and were not related to specific deities (Prent 2005, 207208). For the remaining part of the Early Iron Age, including the Proto-Archaic period, the votive assemblages of Cretan cave sanctuaries are much more heterogeneous (Prent 2005, 554-610). Pottery gains in prominence and is henceforth established as the most common class of votive objects in cave sanctuaries (Tyree 1974, 171). Pottery is actually the only class of finds known from several sites [see e.g., Prent 2005, 166 (Arkalochori Cave), 320321 (Stravomyti Cave), several more cases are included in Faure 1996], although this must be related to the general paucity of study and publication of their finds. Despite this, it can tentatively be assumed that pottery was not a much favored offering in sacred caves (cf. Tyree 1974, 125). This is particularly clear in assemblages of the Early Iron Age. Sakellarakis reports only 55 vases of this period from the Idaean Cave (Sakellarakis 1988, 191), while the relevant finds from Psychro are rather few (Boardman 1961, 56-59; Watrous 1996, 54). One suspects that fragmentary material is largely excluded from these figures. Nonetheless, it has recently been confirmed that the quantity of Early Iron Age pottery from the Idaean Cave is limited (Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 2011, 143). The pottery record from Inatos Cave is richer (Kanta and Kontopodi 2011a, 47, 68-79; Grigoropoulos 2011), but the impression of a limited interest in the offering of clay vessels is enhanced by the overall paucity of ceramic imports from overseas. There are only few Proto-Corinthian vessels (of the late 8th and 7th century B.C.) in the Idaean Cave (Sakellarakis 1988, 191), the Psychro Cave (Watrous 1996, 44 nos. 137-138) and the Inatos Cave (Papasavvas 2003, 74; Kotsonas 2008, 262; Kanta and Kontopodi 2011a, 76). This paucity is in marked contrast to the influx of ceramic imports in Crete of the 9th to 7th century B.C. (Kotsonas 2005, 234266; Kotsonas 2008, 256-294) and the deposition of imported objects made in other materials in cave sanctuaries within this time-span (see below). Pottery of this date is relatively limited in quantity in extra urban, open-air sanctuaries as well (Prent 2005, 347). On the contrary, it is very common in other types of sanctuaries, such as those at Kommos (Shaw and Shaw 2000) and the Gortyn Akropolis (Johannowsky 2002).

Cretan cave sanctuaries of the Early Iron Age show a concentration of images of Near Eastern deities which is unparalleled in other Cretan sanctuaries or other contexts [this excludes the “nude females”, which occasionally Prent (2005, 407-411) considers as goddesses]: A bronze figurine of Reshef was deposited in the Patsos Cave in the transition from the Bronze to the Early Iron Age. Another figurine of possibly the same god and a bronze statuette of Amun Re were deposited in the Psychro Cave at a later date (for the artifacts, see Hoffman 1997, 24-27, for some discussion of the phenomenon, see Prent 2005, 207-209). A “Master of the Animals” of Near Eastern style is depicted on a bronze tympanum from the Idaean Cave (Fig. 11.6) (Prent 2005, 602; Stampolidis 20052006; Stampolidis 2011), while a series of Egyptian faience figurines of various deities (mostly Isis and Bes) comes from Inatos Cave (references are collected in Stampolidis and Kotsonas 2006, 345, ns. 34-35, also, Papasavvas 2003, 73-75; Kanta and Kontopodi 2011b). Similar finds are not entirely unknown in other Cretan contexts, but they are much rarer than in sacred caves. The discovery of these images in deep-rooted sanctuaries may seem surprising at first glance, but Cretan caves (and other extra urban sanctuaries) have a long tradition of attracting images of foreign deities extending back to the Middle Bronze Age (Watrous 1996, 81). The images of Near Eastern deities found in Cretan caves in the Early Iron Age are often rendered on rare and exotic materials, such as ivory and faience, which are imported from the Near East and are otherwise very rarely found on the island (for the distribution of items from ivory and faience in Early Iron Age Crete, see Stampolidis and Kotsonas 2006, 343-346, for exotica from the Inatos Cave, see Kanta and Kontopodi 2011b). In the case of the Idaean Cave, such imports have even been taken as evidence for the introduction of particular Near Eastern rituals (Sakellarakis 2006; Galanaki 2006; Stampolidis 2011). Nonetheless, the notable impact of the Near East in Cretan cave sanctuaries disappears after the Proto-Archaic period.

Terracotta figurines are exceptionally numerous in Melidoni Cave in the 7th century B.C. (Tzedakis and Gavrilaki 1995, 892), while other sites have mostly yielded pottery, along with some terracottas and bronzes (Tyree 1974, 125, 133-134, 140). The Inatos Cave and mostly the Idaean Cave have produced exceptionally rich assemblage of votives of various materials and types (pottery vessels; clay and bronze figurines; bronze vessels, tripods and other utensils; gold, silver and bronze ornaments; sealstones; iron weapons, ivories and exotica in glass and faience), including finds which are otherwise unknown in such contexts (Idaean Cave, Halbherr and Orsi 1888; Sakellarakis 1987, 1988; Matthäus 2011; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2011, 143-211; Inatos Cave, Kanta and Davaras 2011). The rich collection of finds from the Inatos Cave includes a considerable number of Proto-

Any study of later Archaic to Roman votive offerings from Cretan caves is hampered by the relative dearth of finds (which is not always the case) and - mostly - by the overall paucity of publications (Sapouna 1998 is a notable exception). It appears, however, that investment in offerings dwindles after the Proto-Archaic period for reasons discussed above. Votive offerings of the Archaic and Classical periods are largely limited to ceramic vessels and clay figurines (Tyree 1974, 130-131, 147-155, including a few bronzes). The near exclusivity of clay finds

193

NIKOLAOS STAMPOLIDIS AND ANTONIS KOTSONAS persisted until the abandonment of sacred caves in Late Antiquity (Tyree 1974, 159-161, 170, Note, however, that inexpensive non ceramic objects of late date often receive limited attention, see, e.g., the items in Watrous 1996, 55) and is largely paralleled in other types of Cretan sanctuaries (Sporn 2002, 350-356). More varied finds, including a considerable number of Late Hellenistic to Roman coins and a group of iron rings with inlaid gems, have been found in the Idaean Cave (Sporn 2002, 220; LagogianniGeorgakarakou 2003; Moustaka 2004, 234; Melfi 2006, 218-221; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2011, 210). They suggest a change in dedicatory practices at approximately the time of the Roman conquest of Crete. The conquest brought about renewed interest in Cretan caves (as described above) and an increase in investment, the most notable manifestation of which is the erection of two bronzes statues before the entrance of the Idaean cave (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2011, 81). During the Roman period, cave sanctuaries cease to attract figurines, which had been dedicated for two millennia (Tyree 1974, 172), but show a notable increase in the deposition of lamps. Lamps first appear in Classical times, gain in popularity in the Hellenistic period and become ubiquitous in the Roman (Tyree 1974, 155-156, 163-164, also Betancourt and Marinatos 2000, 214-227). The role of lamps was practical, as much as ceremonial, as confirmed by their deposition in the innermost part of the Idaean Cave (Sapouna 1998, 17-20 and also 171-172; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2011, 210-211, nonetheless, most coins of similar date also turned up in the innermost part of the Idaean Cave, see LagogianniGeorgakarakou 2003, 32-37) and Psychro Cave (Boardman 1961, 4-5, 56-57; Watrous 1996, 46, 55). Lastly, an interesting phenomenon of the Roman period, hitherto thinly documented only in the Idaean Cave, involves the rededication of much older votives (Alcock 2002, 127).

character of the deity worshipped and did not depend on other site-specific considerations. Conclusions The innumerable karst formations which dot the primordial Cretan landscape resemble wounds on a shattered, aged body. Their morphology, which is generally considered to have impressed and awed the ancient Cretans, encouraged the establishment of cults. The spiritual appeal of the caves is evidenced by the role they are credited with in ancient mythology, as well as by references of Medieval and later sources. Also, the appeal of the caves to archaeologists, which has shaped the history of research in these sites, is explicit in documents which range from reports of the 19th century A.D. (see, e.g., the quote from Taramelli cited in Watrous 1996, 23-24) to recent publications (Sakellarakis 1987). Because of their long history and impressive archaeological record, the cave sanctuaries of Crete have received considerable attention in archaeological literature. Yet we still miss a formal set of criteria for the identification of a cave used in Antiquity as a sanctuary and cultic use is often inferred empirically. Cretan caves were regularly used for cult purposes in the Bronze Age. By the Greek and Roman period, cave sanctuaries occur over most of the island excluding its eastern and western ends. The number and distribution of these sanctuaries shows considerable fluctuation through time. Despite their stable - albeit diverse - geography and geomorphology, sacred caves were set in changing political landscapes, the transformations of which affected dedicatory practice in the caves. Votive assemblages are generally fairly homogeneous within each period, but there is a clear peak in the variety and quality of offerings during the 9th to 7th centuries B.C. The chronological patterning of dedicatory practice suggests this practice was largely shaped by the concerns of the votaries and wider socio-political developments, rather than by the identity of the gods venerated. In any case, Cretan cave sanctuaries and their gods fell into demise after the introduction of Christianity; the island’s karst formations, however, never ceased to attract and inspire visitors.

In sum, dedicatory practices in Cretan cave sanctuaries show notable fluctuations from the Early Iron Age to the Roman period. Votive assemblages largely consist of relatively few classes of finds, particularly pottery, for most of the period discussed, but a much wider range of objects occurs in several caves from the 9th to the 7th centuries B.C. The broad trends identified suggest that the dedication of votive offerings was mostly unrelated to the

194

CRETAN CAVES SANCTUARIES OF THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE ROMAN PERIOD

Alcock, S.E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past. Landscape, Monuments and Memories, (WB Stanford Memorial Lectures Series), Cambridge.

Galanaki, K. 2006. “Χάλκινες Ανάγλυφες Ομφαλωτές Φιάλες της Πρώιμης Aρχαϊκής περιόδου από το Ιδαίο Άντρο,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 3), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 85-136.

Aretaki, K., V. Simitzis and C. Stratidakis. 2006. “Τα Σπήλαια του Μυλοποτάμου,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 7), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος eds., Rethymno, pp. 37-69.

Grigoropoulos, D. 2011. “Κεραμεική της Ρωμαϊκής Περιόδου,” in ΕΛΟΥΘΙΑ ΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΙΟΝ. Το Ιερό Σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας στον Τσούτσουρο, Α. Kάντα and Κ. Δαβάρας, eds., Herakleion, pp. 80-83.

Bailey, G. and N. Galanidou. 2009. “Caves, Palimpsests and Dwelling Spaces: Examples from the Upper Palaeolithic of South-east Europe,” WA 41, pp. 215-241.

Halbherr, F. and P. Orsi 1888. Antichità dell’Antro di Zeus Ideo in Creta, Torino and Rome.

Bibliography

Hoffman, G.L. 1997. Imports and Immigrants: Near Eastern Contacts with Iron Age Crete, Michigan.

Bennet, J. 1990. “Knossos in Context: Comparative Perspectives on the Linear B Administration of LM II-III Crete,” AJA 94, pp. 193-211.

Johannowsky, W. 2002. Il Santuario sull’Acropoli di Gortina, (Vol. 2), (Monografie della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 16), Athens.

Betancourt, PP. and N. Marinatos. eds. 2000. (in collaboration with Τ. Αlmbani, Κ. Palyvou, Ν. PoulouPapademetriou, S. German, and S. McPherron). “To Σπήλαιο της Αμνισού: H Έρευνα του 1992,” ArchEph 139, [2001], pp. 179-236.

Jones, D.W. 1999. Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete: A Comparison of Artifacts, (SIMA-PB 156), Göteborg.

Boardman, J. 1961. The Cretan Collection in Oxford. The Dictaean Cave and Iron Age Crete, Oxford.

Kanta, A. 2011. “Η Λατρεία της Ειλειθυίας στο Σπήλαιο του Τσούτσουρου,” in ΕΛΟΥΘΙΑ ΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΙΟΝ. Το Ιερό Σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας στον Τσούτσουρο, Α. Kάντα and Κ. Δαβάρας, eds., Herakleion, pp. 28-37.

Campese, S. 2003. “La Caverna,” in Platone. La Repubblica Vol V: Libro VI-VII, M. Vegetti, ed., Napoli, pp. 435-472.

Kanta, A. and K. Davaras 2011. eds. ΕΛΟΥΘΙΑ ΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΙΟΝ. Το Iερό Σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας στον Τσούτσουρο, Herakleion.

Chamberlain, A.T., W. Sellers, C. Proctor, and R. Coard. 2000. “Cave Detection in Limestone Using Ground Penetrating Radar,” JAS 27, pp. 957-964.

Kanta, A. and D. Z. Kontopodi 2011a. “Δείγματα της Κεραμεικής του Σπηλαίου,” in ΕΛΟΥΘΙΑ ΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΙΟΝ. Το Ιερό Σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας στον Τσούτσουρο, Α. Kάντα and Κ. Δαβάρας, eds., Herakleion, pp. 44-79.

Chaniotis, A. 1987. “Plutarchos, Praeses Insularum,” ZPE 68, pp. 227-231. ———. 2006. “A Dodecahedron of Rock Crystal from the Idaean Cave and Evidence for Divination in the Sacred Cave of Zeus,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 3), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 205-216.

Kanta, A. and D. Z. Kontopodi 2011b. “Αιγυπτιακού Τύπου Αναθήματα στο Σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας,” in ΕΛΟΥΘΙΑ ΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΙΟΝ. Το Ιερό Σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας στον Τσούτσουρο, Α. Kάντα and Κ. Δαβάρας, eds., Herakleion, pp. 168-170.

———. 2009. “Extra-urban Sanctuaries in Classical and Hellenistic Crete,” in The Aegean and its Cultures, G. Deligiannakis and Y. Galanakis, eds., (BAR-IS 1975), Oxford, pp. 59-67.

Kephalidou, E. 2006. “Ιερά του Ανατολικού Μυλοποτάμου: Οι μαρτυρίες των Ειδωλίων,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα,(Vol. 4), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 227-273.

Di Branco, M. 2004. “Pelegrinaggi a Creta. Tradizioni e Culti Cretesi in Epoca Tardoantica,” in Creta Romana e Protobizantina, (Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, Iraklion 23-30 Settembre 2000), M. Livadiotti and I. Simiakaki, eds., Padova, pp. 7-15.

Kotsonas, A. 2002. “The Rise of the Polis in Central Crete,” Ευλιμένη 3, pp. 37-74.

Faure, P. 1964. Fonctions des Cavernes Crétoises, (École Française d’Athènes Travaux et Mémoires 14), Paris. ———. 1996. Ιερά Σπήλαια της Κρήτης, Herakleion.

195

NIKOLAOS STAMPOLIDIS AND ANTONIS KOTSONAS ———. 2005. Ceramic Styles in Iron Age Crete: Production, Dissemination and Consumption. A Study of Pottery from the Iron Age Necropolis of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna, Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh.

Platakis, E. 1973. Σπήλαια της Κρήτης, Herakleion.

———. 2008. The Archaeology of Tomb A1K1 of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna: The Early Iron Age Pottery, Athens.

Platon, Ε. 2011. “Η Aνασκαφή του Σπηλαίου της Ινάτου (Τσούτσουρου),” in ΕΛΟΥΘΙΑ ΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΙΟΝ. Το Ιερό Σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας στον Τσούτσουρο, Α. Kάντα and Κ. Δαβάρας, eds., Herakleion, pp. 16-21.

Kourou, N. and A. Karetsou. 1994. “Το Ιερό του Ερμού Κραναίου στην Πατσό Αμαρίου,” in Sybrita. La Valle di Amari fra Bronzo e Ferro I, L. Rocchetti, ed., (Incunabula Graeca 96), Rome, pp. 81-164.

Prent, M. 2005. Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults: Continuity and Change from the Late Minoan IIIC to the Archaic Period, (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 154), Leiden and Boston.

Lagogianni-Georgakarakou, Μ. 2003. “Τα Nομίσματα του Ιδαίου Άντρου,” ArchEph 142, pp. 1-64.

Rackham, O. and J. Moody. 1996. The Making of the Cretan Landscape, Manchester, New York, and Vancouver.

Manteli, K. 2006. “Τελετουργική Xρήση του Ιδαίου Άντρου ήδη από τη Nεολιθική Eποχή,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 3), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 11-19.

Rutkowski, B. 1972. Cult Places in the Aegean World (translated by K. Kozlowska), (Bibliotheca Antiqua 10), Breslau and Wroclaw. ———. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven and London.

Matthäus, H. 2000. “Die idäische Zeus-Grotte auf Kreta. Griechenland und der Vordere Orient im frühen 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,” AA 115, pp. 517-547.

Rutkowski B. and K. Nowicki. 1996. The Psychro Cave and Other Sacred Grottoes in Crete, (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilization 2.1), Warsaw.

Matthäus, H. 2011. “The Idaean Cave of Zeus: The most Important pan-Cretan Sanctuary. Evidence of Metalwork”, in Identità Culturale, Etnicità, Processi di Formazione a Creta fra Dark Age e Arcaismo, (Convegno di Studi, Athens, 9-12 November 2006), Rizza G., ed., Palermo, pp. 109-132.

Sakellarakis, Y.A. 1987. “Εκατό Χρόνια Έρευνας στο Ιδαίο Άντρο,” ArchEph, pp. 239-263.

Melfi, M. 2006. “The Idaean Cave in Roman Times: Cult, Politics and Propaganda,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 3), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 217-227.

———. 1988. “Some Geometric and Archaic Votives from the Idaean Cave,” in Early Greek Cult Practice, (Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29 June 1986), R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G.C. Nordquist, eds., (SkrAth 4°, 38), Stockholm, pp. 173-193.

Moustaka, A. 2004. “Δακτυλιόλιθοι από το Ιδαίο Άντρο,” in Creta Romana e Protobizantina, (Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, Iraklion 23-30 Settembre 2000), M. Livadiotti and I. Simiakaki, eds., Padova, pp. 225-242.

———. 1998. Αρχαιολογικές Αγωνίες στην Κρήτη του 19ου αιώνα. 51 έγγραφα για τις Κρητικές Αρχαιότητες (1883-1898), Herakleion. ———. 2006. “Με Αφορμή Κάποια Λείψανα Επίπλων στο Ιδαίο Άντρο,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 3), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 137-181.

Ousager, A. 2004. Plotinus on Selfhood, Freedom and Politics, (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 6), Århus. Palioura, M. 2006. “Ο Μυλοπόταμος των Περιηγητών κατά το 19ο αιώνα. Απεικονίσεις του στις Έντυπες Περιηγητικές Εκδόσεις,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 6), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 225-250.

Sakellarakis, Y. and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki. 2011. Ιδαίο Άντρο: Το Σπήλαιο του Δία και οι Θησαυροί του, Αθήνα.

Papasavvas, G. 2003. “A Writing Tablet from Crete,” AM 118, pp. 67-89.

Shaw, J.W. and M.C. Shaw. eds. 2000. Kommos IV: The Greek Sanctuary, Princeton.

Papalardo, E. 2011. “Tra Cnosso a l’ Andro Ideo: Iconografie e Rapporti con l’ Oriente,” in Identità Culturale, Etnicità, Processi di Formazione a Creta fra Dark Age e Arcaismo,(Convegno di Studi, Athens, 9-12 November 2006), Rizza G., ed., Palermo, pp. 193-208.

Simitzis, B. 1993. “Τα Σπήλαια του Μυλοποτάμου,” Κretologika Grammata 7-8, pp. 119-132.

Sapouna, P. 1998. Die Bildlampen römischer Zeit aus der Idäischen Zeusgrotte auf Kreta, (BAR-IS 696), Oxford.

Sjögren, L. 2003. Cretan Locations. Discerning Site Variations in Iron Age and Archaic Crete (800-500 B.C.),

196

CRETAN CAVES SANCTUARIES OF THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE ROMAN PERIOD (BAR-IS 1185), Οxford.

Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, (1.2), E. Tαμπακάκη and A. Kαλουτσάκης, eds., Ηeraklion, pp. 329-342.

Sporn, K. 2002. Heiligtümer und Kulte Kretas in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit, (Studien zu Antiken Heiligtümern 31), Heidelberg.

Tzedakis, I. and I. Gavrilaki 1995. “Η Ανασκαφή στο Σπήλαιο Μελιδονίου,” in Πεπραγμένα του 7ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (1.2), N.E. Παπαδογιαννάκης, ed., Rethymnon, pp. 887-894.

Stampolidis, N.C. 2005-2006. “Από την Ελεύθερνα και το Ιδαίον Άντρο: Μια Απόπειρα Ερμηνείας Χαμένων Τελετουργιών,” Εulimene 6-7, pp. 183-205.

Tzifopoulos, Y.Z. 2011. “Eleuthernean Pilgrims Inside the Melidoni cave (Tallaeum Antrum),” in Sailing to Classical Greece: Papers on Greek Art, Archaeology and Epigraphy Presented to Petros Themelis, O. Palagia and G. Ruprecht Goette, eds., Oxford, pp. 79-84.

———. 2007. “The ‘Shields’: Αn Eleuhernian View of the Idaean Cave,” in Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Ηonor of Joseph and Maria Shaw, P.P. Betancourt, M.C. Nelson and H. Willias, eds., (INSTAP Academic Press), Philadelpheia, pp. 297-311.

Tzifopoulos, Y.Z. and N. Litinas 2009. “Graffiti in the Melidoni Cave in Crete, Greece,” in Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Speleology, (Kerrville, Texas, 19-26 July 2009), (Vol. 1), W. B. White, ed., Kerrville, pp. 142-146.

———. 2011. “Eleutherna and the Idaean Cave. An attempt to Reconstruct Interactions and Rituals,” in Identità Culturale, Etnicità, Processi di Formazione a Creta fra Dark Age e Arcaismo, (Convegno di Studi, Athens, 9-12 November 2006), Rizza G., ed., Palermo, pp. 395-420.

———.[forthcoming]. Τhe Melidoni Cave Inscriptions/Graffiti (Inscriptiones Creticae Tallaei Antri).

Stampolidis, N.C. and A. Kotsonas. 2006. “Phoenicians in Crete,” in Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I.S. Lemos, eds., (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3), Edinburgh, pp. 337-360.

Vasilakis, A. 2006. “Το Ιδαίο Άντρο στη Mινωική Eποχή,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 3), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 21-30. Wallace, S. 2005. “Bridges in the Mountains: Issues of Structure, Multi-vocality, Responsibility and Gain in Filling a Management Gap in Rural Greece,” JMA 18, pp. 55-85.

Tsiknakis, K.G. 2006. “Το Σπήλαιο του Μελιδονίου και οι Eπισκέπτες του το 16ο Aιώνα,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την Αρχαιότητα ως Σήμερα, (Vol. 6), E. Γαβριλάκη and Y.Z. Tζιφόπουλος, eds., Rethymno, pp. 197-216. Tsipopoulou, M. 2005. Η Ανατολική Κρήτη στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, Herakleion.

———. 2010. Ancient Crete: From Successful Collapse to Democracy’s Alternatives., Twelfth to Fifth centuries B.C., Cambridge.

Tyree, E.L. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, Columbia.

Watrous, L.V. 1982. Lasithi. A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete, (Hesperia Suppl. 18), Princeton.

———. 2001. “Diachronic Changes in Minoan Cave Cult,” in Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., (Aegaeum 22), pp. 39-50.

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

———. 2006. “Minoan Sacred Caves: Τhe Natural and Political Landscape,” in Πεπραγμένα του 9ου Διεθνούς

Wickens, J.M. 1986. The Archaeology and History of Cave Use in Attika, Greece from Prehistoric through Late Roman Times, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. Willetts, R.F. 1962. Cretan Cults and Festivals, London and New York.

197

NIKOLAOS STAMPOLIDIS AND ANTONIS KOTSONAS

Figure 11.1. Map of Crete showing sites mentioned in the text: caves are underlined. Regional borders are modern.

Figure 11.2. Previously unpublished photograph from D.G. Hogarth’s excavations in the Cave of Psychro in 1899 (Courtesy of the British School at Athens).

Figure 11.3. Photograph of the rock-shelter at Patsos, occupied by the small church of Hagios Antonios (photograph by A. Kotsonas)

198

CRETAN CAVES SANCTUARIES OF THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE ROMAN PERIOD

Figure11.4. Plan of the Idaean Cave showing the grid system of the excavation and the distribution of some types of finds (reproduced from Sakellarakis 1988, 186 with permission by G. Sakellarakis).

199

NIKOLAOS STAMPOLIDIS AND ANTONIS KOTSONAS

Figure 11.5. Photograph of the mouth of the Idaean Cave (reproduced from Sakellarakis 1987, 240 with permission by G. Sakellarakis). Figure 11.6. Detail of the central part of the bronze tympanum from the Idaean Cave showing a deity of Near Eastern style; diameter 0.55m. (reproduced with permission by N. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki).

200

PART IV: Caves In Historical Times

KATJA SPORN to 19 Classical ones in Attika (these numbers are taken from my catalogue of sacred caves). The difficulties in defining and identifying such caves are well known and cannot be extensively discussed here. I agree with Wickens (1986, 79) who writes: “a sacred place is here taken to mean a spot that is set apart or set off from the profane, the division made according to the set of beliefs or religion of the people establishing and accepting the divisions. It is dedicated to or believed to be protected by or under the power of some deity, supernatural or extra human agent or force, and/or it is dedicated to some religious purpose”. Therefore it is not important how many people actually held a place to be sacred, but that some people actually did. I have argued elsewhere (Sporn 2006, 57-58) that ritual in the caves is primarily concerned with private issues and that none of the caves known held feasts integrated in the official character of the poleis. The fact that already a small group of persons believing in the sacred power of a cave defines the cave as sacred means that we ought not to expect huge amounts of votives in these caves (for a discussion of votives as indicators of cult, see Tyree 1974, 152-156; Wickens 1986, 79-80).

12 Mapping Greek Sacred Caves: Sources, Features, Cults Katja Sporn Introduction* Whereas in Prehistory caves were often used as human dwellings or burial areas, in Historical times these uses changed. Caves could still shelter animals, or indeed humans intermittently; or even serve as places of retreat, either in the case of an amorous adventure, or the need for contemplation, or an emergency: In a cave at the River Meletes at Smyrna, Homer is said to have written his epics, (see Paus. 7.5.12). Pythagoras and his folks are said to have retreated in a cave on Samos, (see Proph. vita Pythagoras 9). Euripides is said to have lived in a grim and gloomy cavern on Salamis. This cave has been identified through a vase inscription mentioning the tragedian, but dating from the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. In this time a cult seems to have been established in the cave in honor of the Classical tragedian, but the cave might already in the Hellenistic period have played some role in the cult of Dionysos whose sanctuary is situated below the cave and close to the path leading up to it. The excavations conducted by Yannis Lolos (1997) have not been fully published. Philoktet retreated to a cave on Lemnos (Soph. Phil. 1261). This episode was often depicted in visual arts, e.g., vase painting (Siebert 1996, 50, pls. 1, 2)

No single other landscape of ancient Greece has provided that many examples, although sacred caves exist in nearly every area (Fig. 12.1). Especially in the islands - both in the Aegean and the Ionian Sea - many caves are indicated. The cave sanctuaries in central Greece, for example in Boiotia, Euboea, and Thessaly, have old traditions and were mainly established on mountains, whereas caves in Macedonia and Thrace in northern Greece are rarely known (but see, e.g., Trantalidou and Darlas 1992; Trantalidou et al. 2005; 2006a; Trantalidou, Skaraki and Kara 2006b) and only as a rather late phenomenon of Classical and later date. On the islands of the Ionian Sea they are, however, both close to the sea and very common on mountains, though mostly attributed to the Nymphs. Cult recipients other than the Nymphs are mainly known in central Greece, the Peloponnese, and Crete. The aim of this paper is to compare the sacred caves of other areas in Greece with the Attic and Cretan material in order to shed light on some specific features of the different regions. The focus will be on chronological development, cave layout, and the cults performed (many other features need to be discussed such as the structural premises for a cult cave, the organization of the ritual space, the visibility and accessibility of the caves, and the kind of the votives found, see Sporn 2006; 2010). But in dealing with sacred caves there are more sources to be considered other than the caves themselves as identified in the archaeological record. The 130 documented sacred caves also include the numerous caves indicated only through literary references.

But another function became far more prominent. As natural spaces, caves could easily be regarded as housing divine spirits and were thus ideal settings for ritual purposes. No general study of this phenomenon yet exists: only limited regions such as Crete and Attika have been thoroughly treated [for Crete, see Faure 1964, 1996; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996 (Bronze Age and Early Iron Age); Tyree 1974 (diachronic treatment); Sporn 2002, 346-348 (Classical and Hellenistic), for Attika, see especially Wickens 1986; Baumer 2004, 17-20, 72, a catalogue of Greek sacred caves has been composed by Kalliope Giannoulidou, which was published in a series of articles in the Greek periodical Platon in the 1970s, see Sporn 2006, 40 n. 4]. But sacred caves were not restricted to these areas. Out of around 130 possible or probable sacred caves traceable only within the limits of modern Greece, around 20 can be detected on Crete in Classical and Hellenistic times alone and Jere Wickens counted 13

                                                             *

 The present paper was first submitted in 2008, later bibliography could only partly been updated. It is a preliminary report on an ongoing study of sacred caves in ancient Greece, which started with the study of Cretan sanctuaries and cults in Classical and Hellenistic times, see Sporn 2002; The analysis is based on a catalogue of cave sanctuaries in the Mediterranean, which has been composed during the last years. First thoughts were published in Sporn 2006; Sporn 2010. I would like to thank Jesper Tae Jensen and Carl Knappett for improving the English text and the editors for many useful comments.

Sources For The Study Of Sacred Caves: Literary Tradition And Visual Arts In literary sources quite a number of caves and natural cavities are connected with divine and heroic figures. Nevertheless, it is often difficult to decide whether this is

202

MAPPING GREEK SACRED CAVES: SOURCES, FEATURES, CULTS due to a mere mythological tradition or an actual cult. This is especially so when the exact location goes unidentified. For example, the tradition of the birth of Hermes in a Cave on Mount Kyllene (see Kusch 1999) is plausibly believed to be the aition of an established cult, because it closely resembles well known traditions of other gods, for example Zeus on Mounts Dikte and Ida. His sacred cave has even been tentatively identified. But can this also be deduced for mythical figures, such as the children of Antiope close to Eleutherai, Epaphos on Euboea, Aristaios in Cheiron’s Cave in Thessaly and Sibylla at Erythrai? As regards to Antiope, Pausanias (1.38.8-1.38.9) only notes that she left her children in a cave above Eleutherai (in the area of the later border between Attika and Boiotia), where they were found and raised by a shepherd. Epaphos is said to have been left in a cave on the eastern shore of Euboea, which resembles the βοός αυλή, whence the name Euboea has been deduced (Strabon 1.C.445). Aristaios was said to be raised at Cheiron’s Cave (Ap. Rhod. Argon. 2.510-2.512), so Cheiron seems to be the holder of the cult. For the reconstruction of a cult of Aristaios elsewhere (see Ustinova 2002, 277–278). According to Paus. (10.12.7) people showed a Cave on Mount Korykos close to Erythrai in Asia Minor where the Sibyl Herophile was said to have been born, though he does not refer to an actual cult. But eventually, in the time of the Early Roman Empire, in a shallow, artificial cave at the akropolis of Erythrai, a statue of the nymph Sibylla was erected and thus possibly a cult established, (see Buresch 1892; Graf 1985, 335-350). Whether or not this goes back to an earlier tradition remains unknown. This is not very likely: a cult can be assumed only on the basis of further information, which can typically be archaeological finds and in rare cases iconographic material.

Though, a differentiation is to be made between minor and mainly decorative figures such as the Satyrs, Silenos, Acheloos, and the Kouretes, and the main addressees of worship in these caves, mainly the Nymphs and to a lesser degree Pan. The marginal depiction on the votive reliefs, the lesser number of their representations among the clay votive offerings, and mainly their rare mentions in the written dedications, can be taken as signs of a less common worship. We learn from these depictions that most often the Nymphs and Pan are residing in a cave. The Nymphs are of greater importance and Pan mostly plays no prominent role at all. There can even be reliefs depicting only the Nymphs, but reliefs representing Pan without the Nymphs are very rare and late in date [see the general treatment of the reliefs of Pan and the Nymphs through Edwards 1985, for the Cretan reliefs, see Sporn 2006, the oldest relief of Pan without the Nymphs is kept in Cambridge (around 300 B.C., provenance unknown, see Boardman 1997, 930 no. 138*). There are some Roman examples from Athens (with depictions of two Panes) and from Bulgaria, see Boardman 1997, 928 no. 92 (without a cave frame)]. We further learn that the Nymphs sometimes are associated with the river god Acheloos, with Hermes, Apollon, Herakles, Silenos, and the Satyrs, and in the case of a Cretan relief even with the Kouretes. The common denominator with the Nymphs is their relation to the powers of nature. Not all these figures received cult too but they rather determined the general ambience of the Nymphs, such as the animals which also figure on the frames of the reliefs. The Satyrs and the Silenoi are often represented in terracotta figurines of these caves (e.g., Pharsalos, Ambrakia, Leukada) and once a Silenos escorts the Nymphs on a relief from Crete (Sporn 2004, 1104-1107, fig. 1), but they are never mentioned in dedicatory inscriptions. Other deities depicted in caves on reliefs are not connected with the Nymphs: the Apolline triad, Aphrodite, Hekate, as well as Dionysos and Ariadne and in Hellenistic and Roman times Men and Mithras. Other examples include: a Hellenistic votive relief depicting the Apolline triad from Ftelia in Thessaly, dedicated by a woman and three men to Artemis (see Graeve 1979, 149, pl. 2. 2), the relief depicting Aphrodite and Eros in a cave has been found in a house at Pompei which has been attributed by Seiler (1992, 123-124, no. 38, fig. 614) to Attika and dated to the late 4 th century B.C., a Hellenistic relief in Izmir depicting Dionysos and Ariadne in front of a cave (Bemmann 1994, 214-215, B 13), a Hellenistic relief in Athens depicting Men together with Pan and a Nymph (Svoronos 1908, 443, no. 1444, pl. 72), as well as Hermes and Hekate in a cave framed by Pan and Acheloos with unknown provenance in Berlin. Kiderlen (2003, 124-126) attributes the relief to Attika. The only connection of Hekate with a cave in Attika was in Eleusis (see Hom. hymn. Dem. 25). All these depictions are later than the Classical period and in the main probably not Attic. The Apolline triad is represented on a single votive relief from Thessaly and might well refer to a specific cult since the representation is otherwise completely unknown in Greek iconography. Also unique is the votive relief showing Aphrodite and Eros found in a secondary context in a private house in Pompei (Fig. 12.2), but since both provenience and date are debated it

But the value of the iconographic material is quite meagre for current purposes: depictions of caves in vase paintings are as difficult to tie to cultic use as are literary sources. They are rather connected with mythical tales and performed plays than with actual rituals: depictions of caves often come along with the deeds of Herakles (such as the Cave of the Nemean Lion and the Cave of Centaur Pholos) and with tales of the cycle of Troy (for example the Caves of Polyphemos, Kirke, and Philoktetos on Lemnos) (for the connection with theatre plays, see especially Jobst 1970, for the depictions in vase painting, see Siebert 1996). Nevertheless, these representations testify to a growing interest in the depiction of “the cave” as a visual theme in the later part of the 6 th and especially 5th centuries B.C., at least in Attika. This might well be connected to the increased focus on caves as cult places in Attika during the same period. Among the image carriers decorated with representations of caves only the votive reliefs can supply us with further information. Being used as gifts to the gods (but not every relief served as a votive, especially since Late Hellenistic times similar reliefs could provide decoration in private settings of villas and gardens, see Schörner 2003, 2933), they directly refer to a ritual. Analysing these reliefs is informative on many levels. First, let us consider the deities represented and thus possibly worshipped.

203

KATJA SPORN is of little use for a further identification of a cave cult. The depictions on the reliefs also supply us with information about the rituals conducted. In particular, the reliefs of Pan and the Nymphs always show a round dance of the Nymphs, sometimes led by Pan or Hermes, around a rock altar in front of or in the mouth of a cave. Music and dance seem to be an essential part of their ritual, since dances are also depicted in clay models found in western Greek caves, sometimes led by a flute playing Pan, and fragments of flutes have been found in the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien) [see, e.g., Bélis 1984, 177-181, figs. 1-5 (flutes from the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), examples of clay models depicting female dances have been found on Kefalonia in Melissani Cave and Drakaina Cave, on Ithaka, Leukada, Meganisi, and in Vonitsa, see Tzouvara-Souli 1988-1989, 32-40 with discussion of their importance, which date back to the 6 th century B.C. and are hence earlier than the Attic reliefs and imply a representation of a typical element of the cult]. But it cannot be assumed that all these reliefs were actually set up in caves dedicated to the depicted gods, since they could only be “visiting gods” in cult places dedicated to other gods than those represented (one of the examples from Crete has been found in the sanctuary of Kommos, which was probably dedicated to Athena and Zeus or to Apollon, but not to Pan and the Nymphs, see Sporn 2004, 1108, fig. 3 with further literature).

seen that both the vases and the votive reliefs depicting caves were mainly found in Attika. It would thus be misleading to draw general conclusions from Attika to the rest of Greece. This leads to the question whether the indicated differences between Attika and other areas can be discerned in the archaeological material of the caves too and how they can be explained. Chronological Range Of Sacred Caves Despite Porphyry’s statement that people dedicated caves before they built temples to the gods, this chronological differentiation seems incorrect (Porph. De antr. nymph. 20). The cultic use of caves appears to have started in Historical times mostly later than the construction of temples. Although the first temples were built in the late 8th and 7th century B.C., only a few sacred caves have yielded material of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods. But there are strong differences in Greece, already the well known sacred caves on Crete and Attika having different traditions. On Crete there are caves with sacred material from the Early Iron Age, even continuing from the Late Bronze Age, but in Attika cultic cave use was not common before Classical times and likewise, in Attika a decline can be noted in Hellenistic times. On Crete, however, there was an increase in cultic cave use in the same period. A common feature of both regions is the increasing interest in cave use in Late Roman times [see the chronological development in Wickens 1986, 157-238 (Attika) and Prent 2005, 554-614 (Crete)]. In Attika cave cult started, according to Wickens (with the possible exception of Karabola Cave), gradually in the 7th century B.C. The Cretan situation differs from the Attic one in Classical and Hellenistic times: the Classical period is hardly attested in general and in Hellenistic times there is a greater interest in the countryside (see Alcock 2002, 113-115; Sporn 2002, 346-348). The new interest in cave cults in Late Roman times is attested both in Attika and on Crete (for Attika, see Wickens 1986, 210220). Larson (2001, 231) attributes this to a revival of paganism, particularly in Attika, but it seems to be a broader phenomenon in Greece, which should be studied along with the Late Antique landscape in Greece.

There is further information to be gained from the votive reliefs, both in terms of chronology and distribution. Votive reliefs of Pan and the Nymphs appeared in Attika during the last decade of the 5th century B.C., but the framing in the shape of the mouth of a cave cannot be traced back earlier than 340/330 B.C. The oldest one seems to be the Neoptolemos relief found in a secondary use in a private house on the Athenian Agora. It dates from 340/330 B.C. (see Edwards 1985, 419-439, no 14). Shortly after 300 B.C. these reliefs ceased in Attika. On the other hand, the earliest examples found in other parts of Greece beyond Attika (Megara, Boeotia, Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), Corinth, Megalopolis) date to the late 4th century B.C. They are restricted in that period to Mainland Greece. But they become much more common again in the Hellenistic period and we then find numerous examples from that period in eastern Greece and the eastern Greek Islands. Out of the 113 reliefs of Pan and the Nymphs collected by Edwards (1985), nearly 40 have been found outside Attika (nos. 77-113). Beside a few examples, mainly from Mainland Greece and the Peloponnese, dating to the late 4th century B.C., they are mostly Hellenistic in date and were found in eastern Greece and on the eastern Greek Islands (see Schörner 2003, 48-50, on further reliefs of this type from Crete, see Sporn 2004). Except for a single example from the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), none has actually been found in a sacred cave. This means that marble reliefs were not common votives beyond Attika; their use was first confined to Mainland Greece, and when they became fashionable again in later Hellenistic times they appeared mostly in eastern Greece. But again, it is not certain whether they still served as votives at that time. We have

In other parts of Greece Geometric material has been found in some quantity in caves, indicating cultic use. One of the earliest cult places is the Polis Cave on Ithaca which can be considered a sacred cave from the 10th century B.C. - regardless whether it was a supra regional sanctuary or not - and which was possibly since the 4th century B.C. connected with Odysseus. Polis Cave on Ithaka has yielded votive material definitely from the Proto-Geometric period and some might already be dating back to Late Helladic IIIC [see SouyoudzoglouHaywood 1999, 105-116, compare now Deoudi 2008, for further references, see Malkin 1998, 94-119 with discussion of the role of the cult cave and identification with the Cave of Odysseus since the Geometric period, contra Antonaccio (1995, 152-155) who argues for the later beginning of his cult and Morgan 1999, 377 (cult dating back to the 10th century B.C.)]. Other sacred caves which have yielded material from the Geometric period have

204

MAPPING GREEK SACRED CAVES: SOURCES, FEATURES, CULTS similar settings: Aspripetra Cave on southern Cos, Koukounaries Cave on Paros, and on the Pallene Peninsula of Chalkidike the city of Aphytis with its cave close to the sea: mid-9th century B.C. evidence of cult activity has been found in the Koukounaries Cave on Paros, which might be connected to hero cult (see Malkin 1998, 108). As late as mid-8th century B.C. material has been found in front of the Cave of Dionysos (and the Nymphs?) in Aphytis on Chalkidike [see Leventopoulou-Giouri 1971, 361-366, figs. 13, 14 (skyphoi); Poulaki-Pantermali and Vaxebanopoulos 2004, on the date, see Juri 1976, 135136]. Voutiras (2000) doubts the worship of the Nymphs, based only on a fragmentary graffito. According to Larson (2001, 170) the cave is devoted to the Nymphs and Dionysos from as early as the 8th century (without argumentation). Mid-8th century B.C. material has been found as well in the Cave of Eileithyia on Paros [see Pingiatoglou 1981, 36, 129-130, nos 55-65, pl. 22 (mainly Geometric skyphoi], and in Aspripetra on Kos (Levi 1925-1926, 267-275, figs. 45-59). A thorough study of their material should show how far they are connected with visits of seafarers, a function often found in later times [see, e.g., Cave of Ellinokamara on Kasos, with an inscription of the 1st-2nd century A.D. (Rice 1995, 403 n. 44), on a Cave in Foggia (Italy) with inscriptions from the 3rd-1st century B.C., see Russi 1998].

caves on the Aegean Islands, cult activity started fairly late, in the 5th century B.C. as in Attika or even in the 4 th century B.C. Ιn the Pharsalos Cave in Thessaly, cult activity started in the 6th century B.C., but increased in the 5th century B.C. (Gianopoulos 1912; 1919; Levi 19231924). The dedication by Pantalkes to the “goddesses” (Nymphs) dates to the first half of the 5th century B.C. [Decourt 1995, 88-90, no. 72, see also the Cave of Ellinokamara on Kasos, whose function is not yet determined (Sakellarakis 2006), for the Cave of the Nymphs at Ossa, Thessaly with dedications on marble slabs, see Wace and Thompson 1908-1909; Larson 2001, 75-76, for Nymphaion at Mieza, see Petsas 1964; Romiopoulou 1997, 12-15, figs. 4-7, for Aspripetra Cave on Cos, see Levi 1925-1926]. Newly established cults seem in general to be rare in the 3rd and 2nd century B.C., but there is increasing activity in Cretan caves. The inscription referring to Zeus Milichios in a small cave in the settlement of Goritsa in Thessaly is dated in the 3rd century B.C. (Bakhuizen 1992, 306-307, fig. 113) as well as dedications to the Nymphs on some vase fragments from Cave of the Nymphs at Vathy on Ithaka [IG IX I2 4 nos. 17081712, for the cave, see Stubbings 1962, 416, for Crete, see Sporn 2002, 346-348 (newly or again visited caves: Patsos Cave, Amnissos Cave, Inatos Cave, Trypa sto Stelli Cave, Liliano Pediados Cave, Phaneromeni Cave]. The different use and intensity of the caves should be seen in the regional context of the use of settlements, other cult places, and sea routes. The Classical period was for Attika a heyday in cult activity and an increased interest in nature. In Crete the activity in Hellenistic times is connected with the increasing number of settlements in the countryside. These interrelations need to be studied in other regions as well.

But only in the Archaic period did cultic use become much more common. In the 7th century B.C., especially in the later part, cult started gradually at various caves in Greece. In the Pitsa Cave close to Sikyon, the famous wooden plaques from the Archaic period have been found together with terracottas of female figures, indicating the beginnings of cultic activity (the finds from the Pitsa Cave as a whole still remain unpublished, see mainly Orlandos 1965, 202-206, for the terracotta figurines, see Orlandos 1965, 200, 203, fig. 233). In the late 7th century B.C. the cult seems to start at the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien) above Delphi, although a handful of bronze finds of Geometric date (a horse, a bird, and a ring) might indicate earlier ritual activity (Amandry 1984, 395-396). Also the oldest votives from the Cave of Hermes on Mount Kyllene date back to the 7th century B.C. (Erath 1999). In all these caves the material of the 6th century B.C. is far more numerous, and by this time there was a general increase in cult activity in caves, well before it started in Attika. Cult began in the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Cave of the Nymph Koroneia) on Mount Helikon in Boeotia (Vasilopoulou 2000; this volume), as well as in several caves in the western part of Mainland Greece such as Koudounotrypa (Cave of Nymphs and other gods) close to Ambrakia (Romaios 1916; Tzouvara-Souli 1988-1989) and Drakaina Cave on Kefalonia (Hatziotou, Stratouli and Katjabopoulou 1989; Hatziotou 1995; 1999), at the Monastiraki Cave near Katarraktes in Achaia (Zapheiropoulos 1952, 396-399), Lechova Kryoneriou Cave close to Sikyon (Kormazopoulou and Zygouri 1997, 1177-1178), a cave with dedications to the Nymphs close to Oisyme on the Thracian coast near Amphipolis (Larson 2001, 137) and on several islands. On the other hand, in Thessaly and in a couple of

Architecture And Equipment Wickens noted as a specific feature of sacred caves in the Attic hinterland a general lack of human intervention in their layout, as opposed to architectural elements in caves in settlements such as the Plutonion at Eleusis or the socalled Tomb of Iphigeneia at Brauron. Simple niches inside or outside the caves served for setting up votives, whereas the existence of built altars is not certain. Exceptional is the Cave of Pan at Vari with its rich and various decorations (see Wickens 1986, 173-175; Schörner and Goette 2004). Until Classical times this applies to Greek sacred caves in general. Only from Hellenistic times is there a general interest in the “taming of nature”: architectural features were sometimes added to natural caves and artificially made “natural spaces” were integrated in architecture [the artificial Cave of Herakles at Mount Kynthos on Dilos with an open yard is definitely not earlier than Hellenistic (Plassart 1928, 230, pl. 6, 199; Hellman 2002, 267, fig. 12]. This development continued well into Roman times and resulted in the establishment of operosa antra, artificial grottoes often connected with villas of the Roman elite (for the caves in Hellenistic and especially in Roman times, see Lavagne 1988; Hermannsen this volume, for the caves on Rhodes as examples for the setting of nature

205

KATJA SPORN in architecture, see Lauter 1972; Rice 1995; Neumann 2012). Private cult associations - often associated with the cult of Dionysos and especially of Mithras - created artificial caves in which they gathered in order to fulfill their religious duties (see Boyancé 1960-1961 on Dionysiac caves, on the well known inscription from Kallatis referring to an antron of Dionysos dedicated by a thiasos, see Avram 2002, on a 3rd century A.D. inscription referring to the establishment of a megaron of Dionysos at Abdera, see Bousquet 1938; SEG 27, 320, on the cult of Mithras in Greece and a Cave at Aigion, see Kolia 2003). Nevertheless, in earlier times architectural interventions in sacred caves are rarely found. Exceptions are caves and cavities with architectural facades whose primary function lay in water supply. They were either integrated into a sanctuary area and may have had mantic functions, especially in the context of the Apolline cult (Elderkin 1941), or they were set alone and served as spring houses, reservoirs (krene), or nymphaia. But it mostly cannot be ascertained whether these nymphaia were cult places to the Nymphs, unless an altar or votives can be identified. Examples of such nymphaia have been found at Lefkadia (ancient Mieza) in Macedonia and at Krounia in Thessaly. At Mieza three caves close to a natural spring had obtained an impressive architectural frame, which is indicated through fragments of tiles and a terracotta sima of the 4th century B.C. The excavator Photios Petsas connected the place to the School of Aristotle (Petsas 1964; Romiopoulou 1997, 12-15; Hellmann 2006, 156). Since votives seem to be lacking, it was not necessarily a cult place. Nevertheless, in the Krounia Cave (on the southern side of Pelion) ceramics, metal appliqués, glass fragments and loomweights indicate ritual activity, according to the excavators. Hundreds of architectural fragments (ashlar blocks, columns and capitals) and tiles indicate architectural features in front of the cave and the three cisterns (Agouridis, Zygouri and Rontiri 2006). The finds are mainly Hellenistic and Roman in date, though they go back to the 4th century B.C. Such built reservoirs for water were common, but were not necessarily connected either to caves or to cult activities (see Hellmann 2006, 156, 254 with examples from Argos and Athens, but also from Locri Epizyphyri where cult is ascertained through the votives).

houses a chapel), for Crete, see Sporn 2002, 347]. The mouth is rarely altered: the Panormos Cave on Skopelos has a widened opening and a terrace retained by an ashlar wall (Sampson 2000, 132). Such terraces should supply enough space for the visitors. This is obviously confined to caves which attracted a larger number of visitors in common feasts as for example the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien) above Delphi. The cave is also equipped with a built altar in front of the entrance (Fig. 12.3). Built structures are less conventional than simple, often completely unworked rocks or karst formations serving as altars (on the terrace in front of the mouth of the cave are the remains of a huge altar, see Amandry 1984, 413-414, for other altars, see Sporn 2006, 54). Built or shaped interior divisions are barely known in caves of the mainland. Such divisions have been noted in some caves in Attika, such as Daphni, or in the Cave of Ellinokamara on Kasos whose use remains unknown (see Sakellarakis 2006, 333343, fig. 10; Sporn 2006, 47-48, figs. 2, 3). In a cave connected with the cult of Poseidon at Cape Tainaron in Laconia a man-made wall has been noted east of the entrance as well as cuttings for inserting stelai (Mylonopoulos 2003, especially 232). In the second room of the Cave of the Nymphs near Oisyme in Thrace different stone materials indicate a former architectural feature whose layout is nevertheless unknown (Bakalakis 1938, 97 no 6). By the Monastiraki Cave close to the village of Katarraktes in Achaia a bench like structure was carved close to the mouth and in earlier times a shaped column with a capital like feature decorated the interior, although its date is not known. This feature was already mostly broken when Zapheiropoulos (1952, 396-398) visited the Monastiraki Cave. Only a few remains can be discerned on his fig. 1. It is not clear whether these features were sculpted in Antiquity or in later times when the cave was converted into a church. The same applies to a column like feature in a Cave at Nyphio on Nisyros, which now houses a chapel (Oikonomakis 2001, 58). In the Cave of Hermes on Mount Kyllene, the passage from the first room to the main cult room was widened and an alley was made in order to provide a new room for the deposits of bones (Kusch 1999, 259). Klinai in two groups of caves in the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia have been linked with rituals, maybe connected with Dionysos and hero cult (Gebhard 2002; Mylonopoulos 2003, 184-186 with a discussion of the ritual). Mylonopoulos argues for a role in the hero cult, maybe of Dionysos in combination with Palaimon. Also, artifically reworked caves in the sanctuary of Asklepios at Corinth are connected with water therapy (Roebuck 1951).

Architectural features are not particularly common. In some instances the path leading to the cave was facilitated through some steps [e.g. those leading to the Pharsalos Cave (Levi 1923-1924, 29) and at Aphytis (Leventopoulou-Giouri 1971; Juri 1976, 143-144), the cave on Mount Kyllene (Kusch 1999, 259) and at Vari (Schörner and Goette 2004)]. Niches for setting up votives decorate either the exterior facades or the interior of the cave [niches close to the entrance, e.g., the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Cave of the Nymph Koroneia) on Mount Helikon (Vasilopoulou 2000), at the destroyed Cave of the Nymphs on Paros (Pingiatoglou 1981, 36, pl. 1.1), cuttings for inserting stelai at Cape Tainaron (Mylonopoulos 2003, 232), inside the Aspripetra Cave on Cos (Levi 1925-1926, 239), Panagia Spiliani at Nyphio on Nisyros (Oikonomakis 2001, 58, unknown date, it now

The date of these features cannot be determined precisely. But in summary, alterations are until Hellenistic times confined to small interventions, unless the cave was attracting larger groups of visitors. It was part of the natural attraction of these caves that they were mainly left untouched. Cult And Ritual Activity There remain many questions concerning the role of the cave in the cult. Is there a general link between the cave

206

MAPPING GREEK SACRED CAVES: SOURCES, FEATURES, CULTS obvious: although the votives date back at least to the 6 th century B.C., figurines of Pan appear only since Classical times [for Ambrakia, see Tzouvara-Souli 1988-1989, 1718, for Drakaina Cave on Kefalonia, see Hatziotou 1995, 836, pl. 356b (4th or 3rd century B.C.)]. If there are inscriptions in the caves, they often refer to the Nymphs, but rarely to Pan [inscriptions for or including Pan: Parnes, Lychnospilia (Wickens 1986, 260); Marathon (Oinoe II) (Lupu 2009, 171-175); Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien) (Empereur 1984, 340-346, nos. 2-4, 8, 9 - all 3rd/2nd century B.C.), Pharsalos (Decourt 1995, 72, 5th century B.C. hymn for the Nymphs refers to Pan, Hermes, Apollo, Herakles and his followers, Cheiron, Asclepius and Hygeia, Lykosoura (IG V2 539), Leivadia (IG VII 3092. 3094), Lera on Crete (SEG 23, 579 - late 5th/4th century B.C.)]. Inscriptions for the Nymphs are instead far more numerous.

as a cult place and the cults executed in these places? Do some cults demand a cave as the place of fulfillment? And are there regional preferences? Caves do play a role in some myths. On Crete, the mythical tradition of the birth and breeding of Zeus in respectively the Diktaion Cave and the Idaean Cave links the aition of cult tightly to the location in a cave. The cave served as a place of retreat and secret upbringing. As regards the ritual, this could imply a cult connected with ephebical segregation and education in the wilderness (on the nature of Cretan Zeus, see Verbruggen 1981). In Attika the only known aition connected with a cave is the one of the originally Arcadian god Pan’s help at the battle of Marathon and the establishment of his cult thereafter. The increase of cult activity in Attic caves might well refer to that instance (see Hdt. 6.105; Garland 1992, 47-63; Larson 2001, 97 on the beginning of Pan’s cult in Attika). Actually, most of the cults identified in Attic caves address Pan and the Nymphs (Table 12.1). But this is not the case everywhere. As Philippe Borgeaud has noted, Pan was worshipped in his Arcadian homeland in all different kinds of natural and architectural spaces, but rarely in a cave [Borgeaud 1979, 78-81 (80, n. 52 refers to the well known notice of the Neoplatonist Porphyry in Anthologia Palatina (6.253), who is the only one to mention a Cave of Pan on the Lykaion in Arcadia]. The excavations there have not yielded a cave, but an architectural complex. Nevertheless, there is a cave close to Lykosoura which bears the inscription ΠΑΝΟΣ (IG V2, 530; Jost 1985, 459-460). Only in two caves on the whole Peloponnese, indications for some kind of his worship have been found, neither apparently earlier than Classical in date (for the terracotta figurines from the Cave of Hermes and some fertility goddess on Mount Kyllene, see Erath 1999, 242-244, for the ones from Lechova Kryoneriou Cave, see Kormazopoulou and Zygouri 1997, 1177-1178). In general, the Nymphs seem to be dominant in this partnership and were often the original holders of the cult, to which Pan was later attached (on the connection in general, see Larson 2001, 96-98). In Macedonia, Thrace and the Aegean Islands Pan never became the predominant focus of cave cults. The only indication is the sanctuary of Pan in Thasos, but the relief depicting Pan is situated in a rock feature more adequately called a niche than a rockshelter due to its small size (Grandjean and Salviat 2000, 117-118, fig. 71; Owen 2000 on the possible explanation of the shape as a rock cut grave in its first use). Other indications for the cult of Pan are restricted to terracotta figurines depicting the god found in some of these caves [see, e.g., Levi 1925-1926, 254, fig. 16 (Cos, Aspripetra), 261 (mentioning numerous types]. These terracottas seem to be suitable for nature sanctuaries in general and it is doubtful whether they can be counted as clear indicators of cult when they are found in small numbers [for “visiting gods” in sanctuaries of other deities, see Alroth 1989, 65-105. See also Alroth 1989, 102 (on Pan), 103 (Pan figurines in the sanctuaries of Demeter in Proerna and Knossos), 104, fig. 59 (Pan figurines in the Kabireion of Thebes)]. Even the indicators for the appearance of Pan in both Cretan and western mainland Greek caves do not antedate the 5th century B.C. Especially in the western Greek caves the situation is quite

Pan is therefore a welcome companion of the Nymphs, but except in caves in Attika and the other examples mentioned, he is rarely the original occupant and could often be simply a “visiting god” or a later companion in a cult place of another deity. The connection of Pan with a cave can be called a specifically Attic phenomenon. As Borgeaud has shown, his installation in Attic caves has to do with a different perception of Pan in Attika - as a god of wilderness - than in his Arcadian homeland (Borgeaud 1979). In other areas of Greece other gods were favored. Table 12.1 gives an overview of the identified cult recipients in caves. Some of them are connected with the Nymphs (and Pan): common cults together with Apollo (sometimes called Nymphagetes), Herakles and Hermes are evidenced through votive reliefs and sometimes inscriptions too and do not rely on regional preferences (Larson 2001, 91-100). Sacred caves of Dionysos are - with the exception of Aphytis on the Chalkidike and the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), which has been connected in literary sources with Dionysos too (see McInerney 1997) only known through literary sources. But Dionysos as a god of wilderness has old and strong connections with caves: already the Homeric hymn to Dionysos mentions him together with Nymphs as a resident of caves (Hom. Hymn. Dionysos, see Juri 1976, 143). According to Pausanias (5.19.6) he was depicted reclining in a cave on the chest of Kypselos in Olympia. This iconography is well known in vase painting (e.g., Siebert 1996, 51, pls. 1, 3) and once depicted on a Late Hellenistic or Roman votive relief in Berlin: in a cave shaped frame Pan, accompanied by a dog, and Dionysos, reclining on a thyrsus, are depicted [Beschreibung Berlin 1891, 255, no. 687 (said to be from Boeotia), on the cults in the Cave at Aphytis, see Voutiras 2000]. The lack of material evidence is due to the fact that the material remains of his cult have no specific features, which make them recognizable for the student. So there will have been more caves of Dionysos than the few ones indicated in the list. The literary sources concerning the caves in Euboea and Naxos make a location close to the sea possible, a setting, which is attested for Aphytis as well. But the cave on Mount Pangaion was said to be high up in the mountain,

207

KATJA SPORN which shows that the location of the caves could vary. Neither Dionysos nor Artemis are attested in cave sanctuaries in Attika.

women’s life, whereas other goddesses were confined to a certain function. The Rhea Cave at Methydrion on Mount Thaumasion was in the time of Pausanias restricted to women who were initiated in the cult. Since the cave was connected with the birth of Zeus, the ritual might be connected to childbirth too (Paus. 8.36.3; Jost 1985, 244). And literary tradition points widows hoping for a second wedding to visit the Cave of Aphrodite at Naupaktos (Paus. 10.38.12, the cave has not yet been identified).

Artemis as Apollo’s sister is also connected to the Nymphs. Her cult is possible in the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), the Cave of Arkouda (Cave of Arkoudiotissa) on Crete and has been proposed for the Chrysospilia Cave on Pholegandros too. Possibly in all three caves she was connected with Apollo. A Hellenistic votive relief in a cave shaped frame from Thessaly depicts her with Apollo and Leto (Graeve 1979, 149, pl. 2.2). The dedicatory inscription not only refers to her as the (single) recipient of the votive, but also names the dedicants: a woman and three men, who are depicted too, which allows us to conclude that her cult was open to both sexes. Unfortunately we do not know the reasons for this dedication.

In general, the presence of water with attributed healing powers was one of the reasons to visit a cave. Therefore some sanctuaries of Asklepios in the Peloponnese and of Cheiron in Thessaly were located in or connected with caves. In the Asklepieion at Corinth there were grottoes, which served for healing therapies (Roebuck 1951; Ginouvès 1994, 239-240).

But instead of listing all the names of other gods worshipped in a cave (which can be seen in the righthand column in Fig. 12.4), it seems more important to focus on the contexts and the scope of the rituals (see also Sporn 2006, 55-61). Even in Antiquity it was supposedly not that important whether or not the cave was sacred to a certain god, but that the cave was visited with the hope of relief in certain instances. There could therefore be offerings to different deities in a cave, involving sometimes a considerable number of gods. The Pharsalos Cave dedicated by Pantalkes in the first half of the 5 th century B.C. to “the goddesses” contains a 4th century B.C. inscription which calls the Cave of Cheiron, Asclepius and Hygeia a sacred place of the Nymphs, Pan, Hermes, Apollo, Herakles and the hetairoi as well (on the second inscription, see Decourt 1995, 90-94 no. 73). Obviously it was hoped that the more gods were involved the better were the chances of relief.

The cults in caves also addressed different stages and circumstances of men’s lives. As in the case of the Idaean Cave, some others played a role in the context of initiation rites of ephebes. This obviously applies only to caves with a broader audience and organized ritual that is only the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), the Idaean Cave and possibly the Marathon (Oinoe II) Pan Cave [this applies to the Idaean Cave, the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), and the Marathon (Oinoe II) Pan Cave, see Sporn 2006, 57 with further references]. But the caves attracted men in other situations too. Plato was brought by his parents to a cave on Mount Hymettos to be blessed by the Nymphs. This event was probably not connected with a feast, but was a private endeavor (see Larson 2001, 229 with references). People frequenting the mountain, especially shepherds and hunters, visited the caves in search of water and shelter themselves and their sheep. As a sign of gratitude they dedicated a votive to the gods who were useful for them, Pan and the Nymphs. An early 5th century B.C. inscribed dedication in the Cave of Pan at Vari is made by “Skyron the goatherd” (see Larson 2001, 243). A Hellenistic epigram witnesses the votive of a boar’s head and skin in a cave of Pan and the Nymphs (see Larson 2001, 92). Workmen in quarries devoted a cave or cut reliefs in honor of the Nymphs (see Pendeli Nymph Cave, Wickens 1986, no. 39, rock cut relief, e.g., on Paros, see Edwards 1985, 800-814 no. 89). For seafarers the caves with a mouth opening to the sea level or close to a harbor were ideal settings when asking for shelter from weather or for prayers to continue their travel. This applies to a couple of caves, such as Polis Cave, Chrysospilia Cave on Pholegandros Island on the west site of Astypalea, maybe Gioura Island close to Skopelos, and the Caves of Poseidon at Cape Tainaro and the one mentioned by Homer (Il. 13, 32-3) between Tenedos and Imbros (for this category, see Sporn 2006, 45).

We have seen that there were cults open for both sexes. As far as women were concerned, the rituals were connected with pregnancy, childbirth and childhood. On Crete and Paros these wishes were addressed in caves of Eileithyia, but elsewhere the Nymphs were involved with these requests [for Eileithyia, see Pingiatoglou 1981, 50, 120-122 (there was probably an Eileithyia Cave also on Cyprus); Sporn 2002, 329, -a woman made after a successful birth an offering to the Nymphs Oriades at the cave at Mount Ossa (see Wace and Thompson 19081909, 243-247; Larson 2001, 238-239 and women are depicted offering on two wooden pinakes from Pitsa Cave, although the reason for this offering is not clear, the find of kourotrophos-figurines in Pitsa Cave should allow this conclusion, see Larson 2001, 232-233, fig. 5.1]. Figurines of kourotrophoi have been found in various caves of Nymphs, such as the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Cave of the Nymph Koroneia) (Vasilopoulou 1994, 844; this volume), in Sphakiotes Cave on Leukada (Hatziotou 1997, 1176-1177, pl. 436.b), and in the Aspripetra Cave on Cos (Levi 1925-1926, 257, fig. 29, mentioning numerous further fragments). According to the generalizing statement of Larson (2001, 100-101), the Nymphs could be connected with all different steps of

Because of their natural powers, the sounds that could be heard from their interior and their mystic light, caves played an important role in divination too (Friese 2010a; 2010b; this volume). A couple of oracles were located in caves, connected not only with Apollon as the most

208

MAPPING GREEK SACRED CAVES: SOURCES, FEATURES, CULTS prominent oracular deity, but also with Herakles and the Nymphs (see Sporn 2006, 60-61; Friese this volume, for oracle sanctuaries in general, see Friese 2010a). Oracular cave cults of Apollo were prominent both in Greece proper (Corycian Cave), Ptoion and in Asia Minor (Klaros, Kolophon, Kyrna) (for the Nymphs, see Connor 1988; Larson 2001, 11-20, for the reconstruction of a subterranean oracular cult of Apollo at Histria in modern Bulgaria, see Ustinova 2004).

not yet conclusive whether the Hellenistic Odysseia attested in a late 3rd century B.C. inscription for Ithaca were held in the Polis Cave (see Malkin 1998, 100). Larger communities are attested in the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien) through the numerous votives. However, smaller groups of communities did visit such caves. A famous inscription from the Cave of the Nymphs near Oisyme in Thrace mentions the presence of hetairoi and synpotai in the cave [see Bakalakis 1938, 90, fig. 12 (nine synpotai, late 4th century B.C.), 94-96, fig. 14 (hetairoi, 4th century B.C.); SEG 28, 278; Larson 2001, 239]. The cave is one of the richer equipped sacred caves in Greece with little master cups and the fragment of an eye cup among the finds as well as remains of interior architecture. In Roman times, when religious thiasoi became more common, they are sometimes named as such [see Riccardelli 2000 (Rome, dionysiac thiasos); Avram 2002 (Kallatis, dionysiac thiasos)]. The archiboukolos C. Cassius Sextus in the inscription from Abdera implies a thiasos as well (see Bousquet 1938; SEG 27, 320, see aswell the evidence for pilgrimage to Melidoni cave on Crete, Tzifopoulos 2011). Sacred caves play nearly no role in the political life of the poleis. An exception is the Idaean Cave, where an official decree had been set up in Hellenistic times (Sporn 2002, 222-223). Sacred caves are therefore not important for the study of polis religion. But they are important for the study of people living and working in the countryside. Together with other nature sanctuaries such as hypaethral shrines and sacred groves they need to be studied for a better understanding of the desires and needs of the many people frequenting the Greek landscapes.

Conclusion In modern research, caves are often connected with humble, local and poor visitors; the people living in the countryside. It is true that with rare exceptions, excavations in caves do not unveil precious votives such as metal finds and marble offerings. Marble votive reliefs are mainly found in Attic caves, only one exception coming from the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), where other marble statues witness an unusual richness of the votives [on the marble finds from the Corycian Cave (Antre Corycien), see Marcadé 1984, 307-337, on the rarity of marble finds in caves, see Sporn 2002, 350 (for Crete); 2006, 51-54, also Vasilopoulou this volume]. This can only be explained with the closeness to the important Panhellenic sanctuary of Delphi, from where a partly man-made path led up to the sanctuary. The inscriptions in the caves are mostly scanty and denote persons from lower strata. Only in Athens natural caves within the center of the polis were converted into small cult places. Sacred caves in other regions lay normally outside the inhabited area of the settlements. They were mostly visited for private reasons and institutionalized feasts are rarely attested. It is

209

KATJA SPORN Bousquet, J. 1938. “Inscription d’Abdère,” BCH 62, pp. 51-54.

Bibliography Agouridis, Ch., G. Zygouri and V. Rontiri. 2006. “Το Σπήλαιο στη Θέση ‘Κρούνια’,” in Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας (Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2. - 2.3.2003) (Vol. I), Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού and Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλίας, eds., Volos, pp. 249-262.

Boyancé, P. 1960-1961. “L’Antre dans les Mystères de Dionysos,” RendPontAcc 33 [1961], pp. 107-127. Buresch, K. 1892. “Die sibyllinische Quellgrotte in Erythrae,” AM 17, pp. 16-36.

Alcock, S.E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories, Cambridge and New York.

Connor, W.R. 1988. “Seized by the Nymphs: Nympholepsy and Symbolic Expression in Classical Greece, ClAnt 7, pp. 155-189.

Alroth, B. 1989. Greek Gods and Figurines. Aspects of Anthropomorphic Dedications, (Boreas, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilization 18), Uppsala.

Decourt, J.-C. 1995. Inscriptions de Thessalie I. Les Cités de la Vallée de l`Énipeus, Paris. Deoudi, M. 2008. Ιθάκη. Die Polis-Höhle, Odysseus und die Nymphen, Thessaloniki.

Amandry, P. 1984. “Le Culte des Nymphes et de Pan à l’Antre Corycien,” in L’Antre Corycien II, P. Amandry ed., (BCH Suppl. 9), Paris, pp. 395-425.

Edwards, C.M. 1985. Greek Votive Reliefs to Pan and the Nymphs, Ph.D. diss., New York University.

Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece, Lanham, Md.

Elderkin, G.W. 1941. “The Natural and the Artificial Grotto,” Hesperia 10, pp. 125-137.

Avram, A. 2002. “Der dionysische Thiasos in Kallatis: Organisation, Repräsentation, Funktion,” in Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike. Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung, (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 13), U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and A. Schäfer, eds., Tübingen, pp. 69-80.

Empereur, J.-Y. 1984. “Inscriptions,” in L’Antre Corycien II, P. Amandry ed., (BCH Suppl. 9), pp. 339-346.

Bakalakis, G. 1938. “Ανασκαφή έν Καβάλα και τοις πέριξ,” Prakt, pp. 75-102.

Erath, G. 1999. “Heiligtümer und Kulte Nordostarkadiens. Der archäologische Befund,” in Pheneos und Lousoi. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Topographie Nordostarkadiens, K. Tausend, ed., (Grazer Altertumskundliche Studien 5), Frankfurt am Main, pp. 238-246.

Bakhuizen, S.C., ed. 1992. A Greek City of the Fourth Century B.C., (BibAr 10), Rome.

Faure, P. 1964. Fonctions des Cavernes Crétoises, (École Française d’Athènes. Travaux et Mémoires 14), Paris.

Baumer, L.E. 2004. Kult im Kleinen. Ländliche Heiligtümer spätarchaischer bis hellenistischer Zeit. Attika - Arkadien - Argolis - Kynouria, (Internationale Archäologie 81), Rahden, Westfalen.

———. 1996. Ιερά Σπήλαια της Κρήτης, Herakleion.

Bélis, A. 1984. “Fragments d’Auloi,” in L’Antre Corycien II, P. Amandry ed., (BCH Suppl. 9), pp. 176-181.

Friese, W. 2010a. Den Göttern so nah. Architektur und Topographie griechischer Orakelheiligtümer, Stuttgart.

Bemmann, K. 1994. Füllhörner in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit, (Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe 38), Archäologie 51, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris and Vienna.

———. 2010b. “Facing the Dead. Landscape and Ritual of Ancient Greek Death Oracles,” Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 3, pp. 29-40.

Beschreibung Berlin. 1891. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen mit Ausschluss der pergamenischen Fundstücke, (Generalverwaltung königliche Museen zu Berlin), ed., Berlin. Boardman, J. 1997. “Pan,” LIMC 8, pp. 923-941.

Gebhard, E.R. 2002. “Caves and Cults at the Isthmian Sanctuary of Poseidon,” in Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, (Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June 1994), R. Hägg ed., (SkrAth 4°), 48, Stockholm, pp. 6374.

Borgeaud, Ph. 1979. Recherches sur le Dieu Pan, (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 17), Rome.

Gianopoulos, N.I. 1912. “΄Aντρον Νυμφών και Χείρωνος παρά την Φάρσαλον,” BCH 36, pp. 668-669.

Garland, R. 1992. Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion, London.

210

MAPPING GREEK SACRED CAVES: SOURCES, FEATURES, CULTS ———. 1919. “Φαρσάλου Άντρον Επιγεγραμμένον,” ArchEph, pp. 48-53.

(Internationales Symposion in Olympia von 10. bis 12. Oktober 1974 anläßlich der Hundertjahrfeier der Abteilung Athen und der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Olympia), U. Jantzen ed., Tübingen, pp. 135-150.

Ginouvès, R. 1994. “L’Eau dans les Sanctuaires Médicaux,” in L’Eau, la Santé et la Maladie dans le Monde Grec (Actes du colloque organisé à Paris, CNRS et Fondation Singer-Polignac, du 25 au 27 Novembre 1992 par le Centre de Recherche «Archéologie et Systèmes d’Information» et par l’URA 1255 «Médecine Grecque»), R. Ginouvès, A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, J. Jouanna, and L. Villard, eds., (BCH Suppl. 28), Paris, pp. 237-246.

Kiderlen, M. 2003. “Naturgottheiten vor Höhlenheiligtum,” in Die Götter beschenken. Antike Weihegaben aus der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, M. Kiderlen and V.M. Strocka, eds., Munich, pp. 124-127. Kolia, E.-I. 2003. “Eine Kultgrotte des Mithras in Aigion. Aspekte der Mithrasverehrung in Achaia,” AM 118, pp. 397-427.

Graeve, V. von. 1979. “Thessalische Weihreliefs an die apollinische Trias,” in La Thessalie (Actes de la TableRonde 21 - 24 Juillet 1975 Lyon), Maison de l’Orient ed., (Collection de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen 6, Série Archéologique 5), Paris, pp. 143-155.

Kormazopoulou, L. and I. Zygouri 1997. “Νομός Κορινθίας. Σπήλαιο Λέχοβας Κρυονερίου,” ArchDelt 52, Chron. 3 [2002], pp. 1177-1178.

Graf, F. 1985. Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia, (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 21), Rome.

Kusch, H. 1999. “Die ‘Hermes-Höhle’. Eine Kultstätte am Ziria,” in Pheneos und Lousoi. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Topographie Nordostarkadiens, K. Tausend ed., (Grazer Altertumskundliche Studien 5), Frankfurt am Main, pp. 253-261.

Grandjean, Y and F. Salviat. 2000. Guide de Thasos, (Sites et Monuments 3), Paris.

Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myths, Cults, Lore, Oxford.

Hatziotou, E.-M. 1995. “Κεφαλληνία. Πόρος. Σπήλαιο Δράκαινα,” ArchDelt 50, Chron. 2 [2000], pp. 836-837.

Lauter, H. 1972. “Kunst und Landschaft. Ein Beitrag zum rhodischen Hellenismus,” AntK 15, pp. 49-59.

———. 1997. “Νομός Λευκάδας. Κάβαλλος. Σπήλαιο Μπολιάτσω,” ArchDelt 52, Chron. 3 [2003], pp. 11761177.

Lavagne, H. 1988. Operosa Antra. Recherches sur la Grotte à Rome de Sylla à Hadrien, (BÉFAR 272), Rome.

———. 1999. “Νομός Κεφαλληνίας. Πόρος. Σπήλαιο Δράκαινα. Επίχωση Iστορικών Xρόνων”, ArchDelt 54, Chron. 2 [2006], pp. 1008-1009.

Levi, D. 1923-1924. “L’Antro delle Ninfe e di Pan a Farsalo in Tessaglia,” ASAtene 6-7 [1926], pp. 27-42. ———. 1925-1926. “La Grotta di Aspripetra di Coo,” ASAtene 8-9 [1929], pp. 235-312.

Hatziotou, E., G. Stratouli and E. Katjabopoulou. 1989. “Το Σπήλαιο της Δράκαινας. Πρόσφατες έρευνες στον Πόρο Κεφαλονιάς (1992-1993),” AAA 22 [1995], pp. 3160.

Leventopoulou-Giouri, E. 1971. “Το Iερόν του Άμμωνος Διός παρά την Άφυτιν,” AAA 4, pp. 356-67.

Hellmann, M.-C. 2002. L’Architecture Grecque 1. Les Principes de la Construction, Les Manuels d’Art et d’Archéologie Antiques, Paris.

Lolos, E. 1997. “Σπήλαιον Aναπνοήν Έχον ες την Θάλασσαν. Το Σπήλαιο του Ευριπίδη στη Σαλαμίνα,” Dodone 26, pp. 287-326.

Hellmann, M.-C. 2006. L’Architecture Grecque 2. Architecture Religieuse et Funéraire, Les Manuels d’Art et d’Archéologie Antiques, Paris.

Lupu, E. 2009. Greek Sacred Law, (2nd ed.), (Religions of the Graeco-Roman World 152), Leiden and Boston. Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.

Jobst, W. 1970. Die Höhle im griechischen Theater des 5. und 4. Jhs. v.Chr. Eine Untersuchung zur Inszenierung klassischer Dramen, (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 268. Band, 2), Abhandlung, Vienna.

Marcadé, J. 1984. La Sculpture en Pierre, in L’Antre Corycien II, P. Amandry ed., (BCH Suppl. 9), pp. 307337.

Jost, M. 1985. Sanctuaires et Cultes d’Arcadie, (École Francaise d’Athènes, Études Péloponnésiennes 9), Paris.

McInerney, J. 1997. “Parnassos, Delphi, and the Thyiades,” GRBS 38, pp. 263-283.

Juri, E. 1976. “Το έν Άφυτει Iερόν του Διονύσου,” in Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern,

Morgan, C. 1999. The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary, (Isthmia 8), Princeton.

211

KATJA SPORN Rutkowski, B. and K. Nowicki. 1996. The Psychro Cave and Other Sacred Grottoes in Crete, (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilisation 2.1), Warsaw.

Mylonopoulos, J. 2003. Πελοποννήσος Oικητέριον Ποσειδώνος, Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes, (Kernos Suppl. 13), Liège. Neumann, S. 2012. “Rhodos. Die rätselhaften Grotten

Sakellarakis, Y.A. 2006. “Ελληνοκαμάρα Κάσου,” in XAΡIΣ XAIΡE. Mελέτες στη Mνήμη της Xάρις Kάντζια II, Αρχαιολογικό Ινστιτούτο Αιγιακών Σπουδών, ed., Rhodes, pp. 333-345.

auf der Akropolis,” AW, pp. 73-83. Oikonomakis, R. 2001. Αρχιτεκτονική, Athens.

Νίσυρος.

Ιστορία

και

Sampson, A. 2000. Σκόπελος. Ιστορική και Γεωγραφική Αφήγηση, Skopelos.

Orlandos, A.K. 1965. “Pitsà,” EAA 6, pp. 200-206.

Schörner, G. 2003. Votive im römischen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zur späthellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kunstund Religionsgeschichte, (Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium 7), Stuttgart.

Owen, S. 2000. “New Light on Thracian Thasos: A Reinterpretation of the ‘Cave of Pan,’” JHS 120, pp. 139-143. Petsas, Ph. 1964. “Ανασκαφή Ναούσης υπό Φωτίου Πέτσα,” Prakt [1966], pp. 24-34.

Schörner, G. and H.R. Goette. 2004. Die Pan-Grotte von Vari, (Schriften Zur Historischen Landeskunde Griechenlands 1), Mainz am Rhein.

Pingiatoglou, S. 1981. Eileithyia, Würzburg. Plassart, A. 1928. Les Sanctuaires et les Cultes du Mont Cynthe, (Délos 11), Paris.

Seiler, F. 1992. Casa degli Αmorini Dorati (VI 16, 7.38), (Häuser in Pompeji 5), Munich.

Poulaki-Pantermali, E. and M. Vaxebanopoulos. 2004. “Το Σπήλαιο στο Ιερό του Άμμωνος Διός στην Καλλιθέα Χαλκιδικής,” To Archaeologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai te Trhake 18, Thessaloniki, pp. 125-132.

Siebert, G. 1996. “Imaginaire et Image de la Grotte dans la Grèce Archaïque et Classique,” in Nature et Paysage dans la Pensée et l’Environment des Civilisations Antiques, (Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 11-12 juin 1992), G. Siebert, ed., Paris, pp. 49-57.

Prent, M. 2005. Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults. Continuity and Change from Late Minoan IIIC to the Archaic Period, (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 154), Leiden and Boston. Romaios, Κ. 1916. “Αμβρακία,” Archaeologikou Deltiou, ΙΙ, pp. 52-54.

Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, C. 1999. The Ionian Islands in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, 3000-800 B.C., Liverpool.

Parartema

Sporn, K. 2002. Heiligtümer und Kulte Kretas in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit, (Studien zu Antiken Heiligtümern 3), Heidelberg.

Romiopoulou, K. 1997. Lefkadia: Ancient Mieza, Athens.

———. 2004. “Pan- und Nymphenreliefs auf Kreta,” in Creta Romana e Protobizantina, (Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, Herakleion 23-30 Settembre 2000), M. Livadiotti and I. Simiakaki, eds., Padova, pp. 1103-1120.

Ricciardelli, G. 2000. “Mito e Performance nelle Associazioni Dionisiache,” in Tra Orfeo e Pitagora. Origini e Incontri di Culture nellAantichità, (Atti dei Seminari Napoletani 1996-1998), M. Tortorelli Ghidini, A. Storchi Marino and A. Visconti, eds., Naples, pp. 265282.

———. 2006. “Höhlenheiligtümer in Griechenland,” in Kult und Kommunikation. Medien in Heiligtümern der Antike, Ch. Frevel and H. von Hesberg eds., (Schriften des Lehr- und Forschungszentrums für die antiken Kulturen des Mittelmeerraumes 4), Wiesbaden, pp. 3962.

Rice, E.E. 1995. “Grottoes on the Akropolis of Hellenistic Rhodes,” BSA 90, pp. 383-404. Roebuck, C. 1951. The Asclepeion and Lerna, (Corinth 14), Paris.

———. 2010. „Espace Naturel et Paysages Religieux: Le Cas des Grottes dans le Monde Grec,“ in Qu’est-ce qu’un «paysage religieux»?, (Colloque, Institut national d’Histoire de l’Art Paris, 8-9 Avril 2009), J. Scheid and F. de Polignac, eds., (Revue de l`Histoire des Religions 4), pp. 553-572.

Russi, A. 1998. “Navi, Marinai e dei in Epigrafi Greche e Latine Scoperte in due Grotte del Gargano Nordorientale,” in Porti, Aapprodi e Linee di Rotta nel Mediterraneo Antico, (Atti del seminario di Studi, Lecce, 29-30 novembre 1996), G. Laudizi and C. Marangio, eds., (Università di Lecce. Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità. Studi di Filologia e Letteratura 4), Galatina, pp. 105-135.

Stubbings, F.H. 1962. “The Principal Homeric Sites: Ithaca,” in A Companion to Homer, A.J.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings eds., London, pp. 398-421.

212

MAPPING GREEK SACRED CAVES: SOURCES, FEATURES, CULTS

Svoronos, J.N. 1908. Das Athener Nationalmuseum 1 (translated by W. Barth), Athens.

Tzouvara-Souli. 1988-1989. “Λατρεία των Νυμφών στην Ήπειρο’,” Epeirotika Hronika 29, pp. 9-65.

Trantalidou, K. and A. Darlas. 1992. “ Έρευνες στα Σπήλαια του Νομού Δράμας,” Τo Archaeologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai te Thrake 6, Thessaloniki [1995], pp. 587603.

Ustinova, Y. 2002. “Either a Daimon, or a Hero, or Perhaps a God: Mythical Residents of Subterranean Chambers,” Kernos 15, pp. 267-288. ———. 2004. “Truth Lies at the Bottom of a Cave: Apollo Pholeuterios, the Pholarchs of the Eleats, and Subterranean Oracles,” PP 59, pp. 25-44.

Trantalidou, K., V. Skaraki, I. Kara and M. Ntinou. 2005. “Στρατηγικές Επιβίωσης Μετακινούμενων Κυνηγών Κτηνοτρόφων κατά τη Διάρκεια της 4ης χιλιετίας. Στοιχεία για την Εγκατάσταση στην Ανατολική Όχθη των Πηγών του Αγγίτη,” Το Archaeologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai te Thrake 19 [2006], pp. 45-80.

Vasilopoulou, V. 1994. “Άντρο Λειβηθρίδων του Ελικώνα,” ArchDelt 49, Chron. 2 [1999], pp. 844-845. Vasilopoulou, E. 2000. “Από το άντρο των Λειβηθρίδων στον Ελικώνα,” Εpetiris tes Etaireia Boiotikon Meleton, 3 (1), pp. 404-431.

Trantalidou, P. Karkanas, E. Belegrinou, and Th. Hatjitheodorou. 2006a. “Σπήλαιο σε μια Σημαντική Δίοδο της Δυτικής Μακεδονίας στο Φαράγγι του Λιβαδοπόταμου. Πρώτη παρουσίαση,” To Archaeologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai te Thrake 20, Thessaloniki [2007], pp. 579-594.

Verbruggen, H. 1981. Le Zeus Crétois, (Collection d’ Études Mythologiques 10), Paris. Voutiras, E. 2000. “Το Iερό του Διονύσου στην Άφυτη,” in Μύρτος. Μνήμη Ιουλίας Βοκοτοπούλου, Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού ed., Thessaloniki, pp. 631-640.

Trantalidou, K., V. Skaraki and I. Kara. 2006b. “Πηγές του Αγγίτη στη Λεκάνη της Δράμας. Τα Κεραμικά Σύνολα από το Εσωτερικό του Σπηλαίου,” AAA 39 [2007], pp. 107-138.

Wace, A.J.B. and M.S. Thompson. 1908-1909. “A Cave of the Nymphs on Mount Ossa,” BSA 15, pp. 243-247.

Tyree, E.L. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, Columbia.

Wickens, J.M. 1986. The Archaeology and History of Cave Use in Attika, Greece from Prehistoric through Late Roman times, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University.

Tzifopoulos, Y. Z. 2011. „Eleuthernean Pilgrims Inside the Melidoni cave (Tallaeum antrum),“ in Sailing to Classical Greece. Papers on Greek Art, Archaeology, and Epigraphy, Presented to Petros Themelis, O. Palagia and H.-R. Goette, eds, Oxford, pp. 79-84.

Zapheiropoulos, N.S. 1952. “Ανασκαφικαί Έρευναι εις Περιφέρειαν Φαρών Αχαϊας,” Prakt [1955], pp. 396-412.

213

KATJA SPORN

Figure 12.1. Map of sacred caves in modern Greece (made by K. Sporn, illustrated by W. Aulman).

214

MAPPING GREEK SACRED CAVES: SOURCES, FEATURES, CULTS

Figure 12.2. Votive relief from the Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompei, Early Hellenistic, (reproduction after Seiler 1992, 614: DAI, InstNegB 832164, P. Grunwald).

Figure 12.3. Corycian Cave, entrance with remains of the built altar (Photo by B. Eder).

215

KATJA SPORN Apollo Akropolis, north side Vari (I)

Dionysos

Herakles

Hermes

Nymphs Anavyssos (F), Daphni (F), Eleusis (F), Keratsini? (F), Kitsos (F), Marathon (Oinoe II) (F, L, I), Parnis, Lychnospilia (F), Penteli (F), Ikarion (F)

Boeotia/Euboea Thessaly

Pharsalos (I)

Euboea (L)

Pharsalos (I)

Pharsalos (I)

Macedonia/ Thrace

Thasos (I)

Aitoloakarnania/ Epeiros/Phokis/ Ionian Sea

Corycian (L)

Aphytis (I, L) Pangaion (L) Corycian (L)

Helicon (F, I), Kithairon (L), Lebadeia (I) Euboea (F) Krounia (F), Ossa (F, I) Pharsalos (I, F) Aphytis? (I, doubtful) Oisyme (F, I), Mieza? (F) Ambrakia (F), Vonitsa (F), Corycian (I, F, L), Ithaka, Vathy and Polis (I, F), Kephallonia, Melissani (F) and Drakaina (F, I), Kerkyra (F), Leukas, Asbotrypa (F) and Sphakiotes (F), Meganissi (F) Lechova Kryonriou (F, I) Pharai (F) Samiko (L)

Attika and adjacent areas

Peloponnes

Aegean Islands

Pholegandros? Samos (F) Thasos? (F)

Crete

Arkouda (F)

Ambrakia (F)

Isthmia?

Boura (L)

Kyllene (L)

Naxos (L)

Delos F) Thera

Kos (F) Thasos (F)

(L,

Melidoni Patsos

Table 12.1. List of cults identified in caves.

216

Kos (F) Mytilene (L) Naxos (L) Rhodos (F) Samos (I), Siphnos (I) Arkouda (I, F) Lera (I, F) Idaean Cave

Pan Athens, Pnyx, Ilissos (F) Anaphlystos (L), Daphni (F), Eleusis (F), Paiania (L), Kitsos? (F), Marathon (Oinoe II) (F, L, I), Parnas, Lychnospilia (F, L), Penteli (F), Vari (F), Megara (F), Aegina (I) Pharsalos (I, F)

Others Demeter: Megara Euripides: Salamis (Roman?) Charites: Vari, Megara Hekate: Eleusis Hades: Eleusis Zeus: Athens

Asklepios and Hygieia: Pharsalos (F, I) Cheiron: Pharsalos (F, I), Pilion (L) Trophonios: Lebadeia Zeus Meilichos: Goritsa Erinnyes: Styx (L)

Ambrakia (F) Corycian (I, F) Kephallonia, Melissani (F) and Drakaina (F) Leukas (F)

Artemis: Corycian?, Ithaka (F) Athena Polias and Hera Teleia: Ithaka (I) Odysseus: Ithaka (hell.)

Lechova Kryoneriou (F) Lykosoura (I) Kyllene (F)

Aphrodite: Naupaktos (L) Asklepios: Kyphas (I) Demeter Melaina: Lykosoura Poseidon: Tainaron, Kap Malea (L) Ge: Aigeira (L) Rhea: Methydrion (L) Artemis: Pholegandros? Demeter: Kos? Eileithyia: Paros (I, F) Hekate: Samothrace (L) Poseidon: Thera and Tenedos/Imbros (L) Artemis: Arkouda (F) Demeter: Vryses (F) Eileithyia: Amnissos (L, F) and Inatos (L, F) Zeus: Idaean and Dictaean Cave

Kos (F) Thasos (F)

Agiasmatsi? (F) Idaean Cave? (L) Lera (I, F) Patsos (F)

EMPERORS BETWEEN SKYLLA AND POLYPHEMOS: THE USE AND ABUSE OF ROMAN GROTTOES I will begin with a short description of each selected grotto and then move on to discuss the ancient literary evidence together with the archaeological remains in order to define the function of these grottoes. A section concerning the issue of the Roman manipulation and imitation of nature will follow. I will conclude with some remarks on the characteristics of the grottoes and their decoration.

13 Emperors Between Skylla And Polyphemos: The Use And Abuse Of Roman Grottoes Mette Catherina Hermannsen Introduction*

The Selected Grottoes

In Roman Imperial Italy some of the grottoes had a surprising function. Instead of being sacred places belonging to gods or nymphs, the Romans began to inhabit the grottoes. The most impressive of these are connected with Imperial villas in the countryside. The Romans transformed the natural space into an architectural room, which was used as their own private dining room. The degree of the grottoes natural appearance varies ranging from real caves partly hewn out to entirely artificial rooms that imitate natural grottoes by using pumice to decorate their walls and ceilings.

The Sperlonga Grotto Τhe most famous of the Roman grottoes is the Sperlonga Grotto. It is part of a seaside villa complex situated between Rome and Naples. As can be seen in older drawings, the grotto has always been visible. Nevertheless, it was first excavated in 1957 during construction of the coast road (see Iacopi 1963; Cassieri (2000) gives the most recent literature on the whole grotto complex including the villa). Among the many finds were fragments of sculptural groups showing some of Odysseus’ adventures, such as Odysseus and his men blinding the sleeping Cyclops, Polyphemos, after many cups of wine. The sculptures were smashed into tiny pieces and dumped into the pool (on the reconstruction of the sculptures, see Andreae and Conticello 1974; Ridgway (2000, 78-91) sums up the research on the Sperlonga Grotto and sculptures up to the date of the Fourth Annual Langford Conference of the Department of Classics at The Florida State University, which was held in 1996; see also the catalogue made for the special exhibition Ulisse. Il mito e la memoria at Palazzo delle Esposizioni in Rome, 22 febbraio – 2 settembre 1996, with excellent articles and photos (Andreae and Presicce 1996; Squire 2003; Lavagne 1988, 515-556).

This manipulation of nature is something that fits perfectly with the Roman idea of creating artificial landscapes. This tradition is known to us from both the ancient writers and the archaeological sites in the Vesuvian towns. Great attention was paid not only to the views from the grottoes but also to the sculptural program, showing for instance the famous myth of Odysseus escaping the Cave of the Cyclops, a much appropriated theme. The aim of this paper is to explore the different uses made of a group of caves in Italy during the Roman Empire. These Roman grottoes (the word “cave” will be used to refer to a natural cave, and “grotto” to refer to a cave that has been altered into an architectural room) were altered from a natural cave into an architectural room and were richly furnished.

It must be stressed that other sculptures were found in the grotto as well, but since they do not fit nicely into the adventures of Odysseus they have not attracted similar scholarly interest (Iacopi 1963, 109, 114-161; Beard and Henderson 2001, 80-82). All the sculptures from the grotto, except the Hesione/Andromeda (now at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli) are in the museum at Sperlonga (see Cassieri 2000, 19-20, 61-79). Some of these finds, such as two male portrait heads dating to the early 2nd/late 3rd century A.D., as well as ceramics and lamps with Christian motifs, indicate that the grotto continued in use until the Late Antique period (see Iacopi 1963, 143-147, figs. 140-143 (portraits) and 157-161, figs. 157-158, 160-168 (vases)). Also worth mentioning is a marble plaque with a ten line epigram made by a man named Faustinus Felix, which refers to “the poet from Mantue”, in other words Virgil, and the surprising finds of two Attic red figure vases from the 5th century B.C. (on the Faustinus epigram, see Weis 2000, 126-134, 140-142; for the vases, see Iacopi 1963, 153-157, figs. 152-156).

They were furthermore decorated with beautiful marble sculptures and mosaics. This phenomenon seems limited to the Imperial period and concentrated in the areas of Latium, Campania, and the Island of Capri. Most of the grottoes are found in connection with large villa complexes and thereby reflect the social status of their rich owners.

*

This article is based on my 2006 MA thesis at the University of Copenhagen, Department of Classical Archaeology. I especially wish to thank Jim Schryver for all his help and support during the research phase of this work and for reading an early draft of this article. I also wish to thank the Danish Institute at Athens for a grant to support my stay in spring 2006, and the American School of Classical Studies for allowing me to use their splendid Blegen Library. Finally, I wish to thank Tae and Fanis for kindly inviting me to contribute to this anthology and for their useful suggestions in the process of writing this article. All ancient translations are from the Loeb series. Any mistakes remain my own.

The grotto and its sculptures owe part of their fame to a Greek inscription naming the very same three Rhodian sculptors who, according to Pliny the Elder, made the famous Laocoon statue (Plin. HN 36.37). In 1506 a marble

217

METTE CATHERINA HERMANNSEN statue of the Trojan priest Laocoon and his two sons was found on the Esquiline Hill in Rome, around the area were the Emperor Titus had constructed his palace. The story of Laocoon is an episode from The Trojan War, although it is not to be found in Homer’s Iliad, but in the Roman epic, The Aeneid by Virgil (see Aen. 2.40; 2.2012.231). Today the Laocoon group can be seen in the Belvedere Courtyard of the Vatican Museum (Isager 1991, 168-174 with further reference to the vast literature on the subject, also Beard and Henderson 2001, 65-74; Ridgway 2002, 87-90). Though there is still an ongoing debate concerning the nature of the sculptures (in other words whether they are Greek originals or Roman copies, their relation to a Rhodian School, etc.), there seems to be a consensus that the installation of these sculptures was part of a renovation of the grotto that dates from the late 1st century B.C. to the early 1st century A.D.. The villa complex is therefore older (for the claim that the installation should be dated around 30-20 B.C. based on style of the masonry, see Kunze 1996; for a response to Kunze’s argument, see Weis 2000).

ures 14 x 15 m, which is quite smaller than Sperlonga’s 25 x 25 m. As at the Sperlonga Grotto, a circular pool occupies most of the floor in the main room; but here the pavement around the pool consists of a polychrome mosaic showing sea creatures as well as a Medusa head (on the mosaic, see Balland 1967, 446-466). The walls had a revetment, probably of marble panels. These have all been stripped off, leaving only their impressions in the mortar or the marks where the nails held them to the wall (De Fine Licht 1974, 49-50). In 1841 an excavation inside the grotto brought to light different types of sculptures, including statues of a Scylla and a Polyphemos. This illegal excavation, carried out by Giovanni Merolli, is the only one that ever took place inside the cave (for the publication of this excavation, see Lugli 1913; Liverani 1996, 333). The sculptures are now in the small museum that forms part of the Pope’s summer residence at Villa Barberini in Castel Gandolfo (for the sculptures, see Liverani 1989). These two finds show that there is also a clear iconographic similarity in sculptural themes between the so-called Ninfeo Bergantino and the Sperlonga Grotto.

The grotto itself, which has attracted less attention than the sculptures, was originally a huge natural cave. The main room’s dimensions are ca. 25 x 25 m and it consists mainly of a man-made circular pool, measuring 22 m in diameter (Fig. 13.1). In the middle of the pool was placed a huge sculptural group showing the sea monster Skylla attacking Odysseus’ ship. The Greek inscription was placed on the ship’s stern (photos of the reconstructed Skylla group as well as the inscription can clearly be seen in Conticello 1996, figs. 1-6). In front of the grotto was placed a huge rectangular pool with an artificial island in the middle, where the diners could recline and have a nice view into the presumable richly decorated grotto. The grotto’s elaborate water system also included a small oval pool to the left of the entrance.

The building technique points to a Flavian date, or more precisely the last half of the 1st century A.D. (Lugli 1913). This date fits well with the large scale Imperial building activity in this area that was due to the fact that the Emperor Domitian owned a huge villa on the top of the mountainside. A road connecting this villa to the grotto provides clear evidence for a connection between the two complexes. The Grottoes On Capri The Island of Capri holds a special place in this context, since on this small 10 km2 island there can be found more than 170 caves (Kyrle 1998, 114-115). Some, such as the Grotta delle Felci, have been in use since the Neolithic period (Andrén 1980, 10-13). Exploration of these caves and grottoes has therefore a very long history. Most of the ancient sites on the island have fallen victim to treasure hunters, who, of course, hardly left any description of what they found and where they found it (on these colorful characters, see Andrén 1980). One exception is the Austrian Norbert Hadrawa. In 1786 he asked Ferdinand IV of Bourbon, the king of Naples, to whom Capri belonged, for permission to dig at Capri’s sites. He further proposed that they split all the finds. In some of the letters that Hadrawa sent to friends and family he describes what he had found and even mentions where, but unfortunately without being specific enough for us to identify the places (Andrén 1980, 84, for the letters published in Italian, see, Hadrawa 1793 (non vidimus); for a German translation of the letters, see Hadrawa 1794 (non vidimus)). Compared to what is left at the sites today, these letters are valuable because they reveal that at least something was found in the caves and thereby reveal that they were used by man. In 1931 another Austrian, the speleologist Georg Kyrle, and his team explored 66 of Capri’s caves (see Kyrle 1946 (non vidimus), the book

The So-Called Ninfeo Bergantino It is remarkable that even after the excavation of the Sperlonga Grotto, only very little attention has been drawn to its “sibling”, the so-called Ninfeo Bergantino (De Fine Licht 1974, 37-38. He measured the grotto from 1969-1971. In the article he also reviews the then current state of research on the grotto, 37-39 and n. 1.; see also Lavagne 1988, 589-594). This grotto is situated on the western shore of Lake Albano, ca. 30 km southeast of Rome. It consists of a natural cave in the volcanic tufa that was made into a smaller version of the Sperlonga Grotto (Fig. 13.1). The grotto opens towards the east and affords a view over the lake towards the hill known as Monte Cavo. Today the entrance has been blocked, but the view can be studied on older drawings from the 17th and 18th centuries (on the older drawings, see Amendolea 1987; Devoti 2000, 230-235; for the view from the grotto that can be seen on the drawings made by Carlo Labruzzi and Luigi Rossini, see Amendolea 1987, figs. 13, 15; a drawing by W.E. Gmelins can be seen in De Fine Licht 1974, fig. 4). The grotto has the same plan as the Sperlonga Grotto and is centered on a main room, which has minor rooms extending off of it. The main room meas-

218

EMPERORS BETWEEN SKYLLA AND POLYPHEMOS: THE USE AND ABUSE OF ROMAN GROTTOES was republished in 1998 in an Italian edition that also included valuable color photographs, see Kyrle 1998).

since time was spent to furnish the grotto with very expensive decoration.

Grotta Azzura

The Grotto dell’Arsenale

At least four of Capri’s caves show clear signs that the Romans transformed them into rooms. One of them is the famous “Grotta Azzura”, the Blue Grotto, today one of Capri’s biggest tourist attractions. The name of the grotto refers to the specific light inside, which was “discovered” by a German poet in 1826 (Andrén 1980, 135-140). The grotto has not been explored in depth and the only existing plan of it was made by Kyrle.

The Grotto dell’Arsenale is another seaside cave located on Capri’s southern coast. Its modern name refers to the later use of the grotto as a boat arsenal. The grotto consists of one huge and nearly circular room with a diameter of 22 m (Fig. 13.3). A ca. 4 m wide ramp that leads from the cave to the sea cannot be dated precisely and might belong to the Post-Roman use of the grotto. A low wall runs along the sides of the main room and opens up into three rooms. The circular wall and the walls of these other rooms are all made in Roman building techniques, for example tiles or in opus recticulatum (Mingazzini 1955, 152).

The Grotta Azzura is situated on Capris’ northern coast. Today, as in Antiquity, it is only accessible by the sea through a ca. 2 m wide and very low entrance. This leads into a huge natural room measuring roughly 60 x 25 m (Fig. 13.2). The floor of this grotto therefore consists, so to speak, of water with a depth of 14 m to 22 m. The special light inside the grotto is created by rays of light that enter through a huge submarine “window” (Kyrle 1998, 91-93, relates that this measures 19 m in height and 10 m in width at the top, but gets wider further downwards)).

The Grotto dell’Arsenale was already looted in Antiquity. The first documented excavation was carried out in 1930. During this and following excavations numerous colored glass tesserae were found. The excavation in 1930 was led by Paolino Mingazzini (see Mingazzini 1955, 154). Excavations had taken place before 1930 but were never published. It was probably during one of these that the grotto was stripped of its marble decoration. This was a fate shared by most of the sites on Capri. According to Mingazzini the tesserae decorated 12 square cuttings in the ceiling that might have resembled a cassette ceiling (Mingazzini 1955, 152-154, the cuttings measure 1.20 x 0.8 m., have a depth of 1 m., these are lined with cocciopesto). In addition, the floor of the grotto contained the remains of a colorful marble design in opus sectile (Mingazzini 1955, 154-155). Mingazzini found a few fragments of black and gray marble as well as a red marble profile.

At the back of the room three passages lead into a large rock gallery. The westernmost of these passages had its floor converted into a moorage for boats by being planed off and filled with Roman masonry (Kyrle 1998, 94; Andrén 1980, 82). According to Kyrle, inside the passage system, the ceiling and walls have been hewn out and there are still traces of a Roman mortar (Kyrle 1998, 94). He also describes 0.60 m wide ledges carved 1 m underwater, both at the western side of the grotto as well as outside (Kyrle 1998, 92). Similar ledges have been found at other places on the north coast as well. Kyrle claims that they were used as moorings for boats, while Arvid Andrén suggests that these were niches for statues (Andrén 1980, 82).

The Matermania Grotto The Matermania Grotto takes its name from the legend that it was originally used as a cult place for the Great Mother Goddess, Cybele, also called Mater Magna. This use has not yet been verified. The grotto is situated high up in the east coast cliff area with a beautiful view to the Sorrento Peninsula. The huge natural cave has been split up by building walls that divide it into rooms (Fig. 13.4). The rectangular main room ends in a curved apse in two levels that led to the natural end of the cave (Fig. 13.5). Amedeo Maiuri reports that there was water springing from the two natural niches at the back, but this has not been observed since (Maiuri 1931, 152). No water was noticed by Mingazzini (1955, 144), who excavated there in the summer of 1930. Furthermore, no water could be found when I saw the grotto in July 2004. This might be due to the season since the water dries out in the summer months. As with all other of Capri’s grottoes, it has also been stripped of its decoration, leaving only a few fragments of stucco, glass tesserae, and sea shells behind (Sear 1977, 62, who, based on these finds, argues that the grotto should be dated to the Late Augustan/Tiberian period). A few pieces of nicely cut marble in different colors suggest that the floor originally had opus sectile deco-

In 1964 and again in 1975 a number of sculptures were raized from the bottom of the grotto (Federico and Miranda 1998, 215-216, figs. 9.33-9.36). The condition of the sculptures found inside the grotto is very bad, they are broken, eroded by saltwater, and covered by lime deposits. What can be seen is that they depict at least two naked men, generally interpreted to be a Triton and a bearded sea god. The lower part of a merman, to judge from the legs that are shaped as curved fish tails, and a small, draped female figure were also found. The best preserved are finished off at knee height and therefore thought to have been placed so they rose out of the water (Andren 1980, 83). In addition to these sculptures, the Grotta Azzura bears other traces of Roman decorative activities. The cuttings and the mortar in the passages at the back of the cave point to some human manipulation, while a ramp or landing stage at the westernmost passage suggest that the Romans left their boats in order to stretch their legs in the grotto. Furthermore, the sculptural finds suggest that this grotto had a function as a luxury room

219

METTE CATHERINA HERMANNSEN The literary sources link at least one of the grottoes to an emperor. However, they also tell us that private persons could own a grotto, and these grottoes were artificial too. Appian tells the story of a wealthy Roman who was most likely killed because he owned a lovely grotto (App. B Civ. 4.29). The owner of this grotto was refreshing himself inside it when a loyal slave observed the killers approaching. He tried in vain to save his master by hiding the master and dressing up like him, but the trick was exposed by less loyal slaves. Nothing is said about the grotto itself, its decoration, location or the identity of its owner. But the fact that the man was refreshing himself supports the idea that the grotto functioned as a recreational space. The story takes place during the proscriptions of 43 B.C., so it is an episode far away from Appian’s own time. But, if we choose to believe the story, it shows that private ownership of grottoes can be traced back to the Late Republic.

ration (Mingazzini 1955, 145). It is further noted that Hadrawa took a lot of marble from this grotto (Federico and Miranda 1998, 146). There are also remains of Roman building activities in three other of the Capri grottoes, for instance the Grotta Castiglione (Kyrle 1998, 109-112; Federico and Miranda 1998, 201). However, access to this grotto is not easy because it is situated high up in a cliff-face, which has given the grotto its name. Its location suggests that it was later used as a refuge in the medieval period. This re-use as well as other Post-Antique activities in the grotto have altered the area, and therefore not much of the Roman remains can be seen today. According to Andrén, remains of Roman decoration were also found in the interior of the Grotta dell’Arco, which is also located high up in a cliff-face (Andrén 1980, 83). Finally, Andrén cites Hadrawa as well as Giuseppe Maria Secondo, both from the 18th century, who reported that there was Roman masonry to be seen in and around the Grotta Oscura (Andrén 1980, 84; Secondo 1808 (non vidimus); for Hadrawas letters, see Hadrawa 1793 (non vidimus); 1794 (non vidimus). Andrén has argued that it is possible that the Grotta Oscura is identical with the grotto that according to Giuseppe Feola disappeared from sight in 1808 due to a landslide (Andrén 1980, 137).

Also informative concerning the social status associated with private grottoes in the Late Republic is the poet Propertius. He tells us that he is not rich according to the normal standard, since his house is not furnished with either marble columns, ivory chambers, or more interestingly, artificial grottoes with inlaid water (Prop. Elegiae III, II, 11). This text shows that the artificial grotto was part of the image of what constituted a luxury villa, and thereby that grottoes were a symbol of wealth.

From this overview of grottoes, it can be concluded that there is a splendid view from all the grottoes except for the Grotta Azzura, whose blue interior light more than makes up for the lack of a view toward the outside. Furthermore, all were originally natural caves that have been enlarged or furnished with walls and/or paved floors in order to shape the caves into architectural rooms. Even though there is no archaeological evidence for the function of these grottoes, their lavish decoration points to a recreational use. Almost all of the grottoes have been stripped of their decoration, both sculptural as well as the marble and other possible precious stones that gave a finishing touch to the walls and floors. But in some cases it is possible to glimpse the decoration via the marks in the mortar that indicate where the revetments originally were placed, as is the case for the Ninfeo Bergantino. In Antiquity all of these grottoes with all of their impressive and beautiful decoration intact would, of course, have seemed far less cave-like than they appear today. With the combined effects of the marble revetment of the walls and floors (made of either polychrome figural mosaics or opus sectile) as well as the sculptural decoration and the furniture and lamps, it would have been like entering a room set up in nature.

Another voice, this time from the Early Empire, also mentions grottoes belonging to private persons. Seneca the Younger mentions a villa close to Baiae belonging to Servilius Vatia, where there were two big artificial grottoes (Sen. Ep. 55.6., the whole letter is about this villa, which Seneca describes to his friend Lucilius). One was placed in the sun, while the other was in the shade. The luxury of having two grottoes fits well with Seneca’s notion that Vatia was famed for nothing else than his life of leisure (Sen. Ep. 55.3.). The ancient literature also provides evidence for a connection between one of the emperors and the Sperlonga Grotto. Both the historian Tacitus and the biographer Suetonius mention an accident that nearly killed Tiberius, while he was dining in a Campanian villa called Speluncae: “They were at table in a villa known as the Grotto, built in a natural cavern between the Gulf of Amyclae and the mountains of Fundi. A sudden fall of rock at the mouth buried a number of servants, the consequence being a general panic and the flight of the guests present.” (Tac. Ann. 4.59.) “. . . and both predictions were all but fulfilled; for he did not return again to Rome, and it chanced a few days later that as he was dining near Tarracina in a villa called the Grotto, many huge rocks fell from the ceiling and crushed a number of the guests and servants, while the Emperor himself had a narrow escape.” (Suet. Tib. 39.)

The Evidence Found In Ancient Literature The ancient literature is informative in many aspects regarding Roman grottoes. For example, it tells us who owned the grottoes, how the Romans felt about them, and what went on in them. Often, as with the issues just mentioned, the evidence that is found in the literary sources cannot be read out of the archaeological remains.

Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius comment directly on the ownership of the villa and the grotto. Therefore the only conclusion that can be made based on these accounts is

220

EMPERORS BETWEEN SKYLLA AND POLYPHEMOS: THE USE AND ABUSE OF ROMAN GROTTOES that Tiberius was there at a point and that the grotto was use for dining. Tacitus also mentions that the grotto was built in a natural cavern “nativo in specu,” once again providing evidence that a natural cave had been altered into a room.

An additional method of imitating nature is reflected in the use of pumice. This very lightweight material was put up in order to imitate stalactites and thereby recreates the ceilings and walls of a cave. Pliny the Elder calls this technique opus musivum and claims it is a Roman invention (Plin. HN 36.154; Sear 1977, 18). The technique can be observed for instance on the ceiling in the Bergantino Grotto, on some of the walls and ceilings in Sperlonga, and in some of the Late Republican grottes.

The very same Emperor Tiberius is known in connection with the Island of Capri. Tiberius spent the last ten years of his life there, and according to Tacitus and Suetonius he had 12 villas on the island. Suetonius’ stories about the orgies that Tiberius held there are well known, but for our purposes it is interesting that Suetonius states that some of these took place in grottoes. It therefore seems reasonable to assume a connection between Capri’s grottoes and Tiberius considering that he more and less owned the whole island and that he used it as a kind of fortress during the last years of his life.

According to ancient literary sources, the idea of manipulating a natural cave into an architectural room can be traced back to the Late Republic. The archaeological evidence also supports this dating. In addition, there are a few examples of artificial caverns or hollows in a slope being hewn out of the natural rock to hold a rectangular room (Neuerburg 1965, 41-52). I will here only briefly discuss a few of these examples. A few other examples are found in the Grotta di Paris, south of Tivoli, and the nymphaeums at the so-called Cicero’s Villa at Formia. A later example is the Grotto della Ninfa Egeria, which was part of Herodes Atticus’ villa located 3 km outside Rome.

After the death of Tiberius in A.D. 37, Capri’s popularity faded away and it is no longer mentioned in the ancient texts. Only the Emperor Commodus (A.D. 180-193) used the island to store away his unfaithful wife Crispina and his sister Lucilla who had conspired against him, before he had them executed (Cass. Dio, HR 73.4). The archaeological record is also scant for the Post-Tiberian period due to the fact that most of the sites have been robbed.

Grottoes In Form Of Rectangular Rooms The So-Called Ninfeo Dorico

The literary sources thus echo much of the information provided by the archaeological record concerning these spaces. Grottoes are described as artificial rooms used as places of relaxation from the Republican period onward. Furthermore, they formed part of private otium villas, at least until the Early Empire, and they were seen as a luxury that granted status.

This complex is found on the shore of Lake Albano just a few hundred meters from the Bergantino Grotto. It is a totally artificial construction hewn out of a natural hollow in the cliff (Amendolea 1987; Devoti 2000). It opens up towards the east and has a pleasant view over the lake. The complex consists of a rectangular room measuring 11 x 6 m and crowned with a barrel vault. It takes its name from the doric pilasters that are part of the architectural decoration of this room. Richard Neudecker connects the Ninfeo Dorico with a 1st century B.C. villa that was located nearby (Neudecker 1988, 144).

The Idea Of Manipulating And Imitating Nature The transformation of natural caves into artificial grottoes follows a Roman tradition of manipulating nature (Carey 2003, 105, 111). The manipulation could take many different forms. The most obvious is the garden, which in itself is nature turned into art. Among the examples of private gardens that have been excavated around Vesuvius, many have much more in common with architecture than nature (Jashemski 1979; 1993). Here the garden was used as a relaxing outdoor room in addition to the house itself.

The So-Called Sant’Antonio Ninfeo This grotto is situated with a beautiful view of the waterfall of Tivoli, ancient Tibur (Giuliani 1970, 299-315; Lavagne 1988, 382-385). It is built into a hill and consists of a rectangular, basilica formed room, with a central apse. It was richly decorated with a mosaic floor and had different kinds of marble on the wall. The apse that framed the slowly dripping water was furnished with stucco, marble, and shells. The grotto is part of a Late Republican villa that is located lower on the hill, but not in direct contact with other buildings.

Another way in which the Romans combined nature and art or rather architecture is the imitation of nature by painting it on the walls inside their homes. This practice can be traced back to at least the Early Republic. From this period, two of the most famous examples are Mecaenas’ Auditorium in Rome and the garden room in Livia’s villa at Primaporta (for Mecaenas’ Auditorium, see Settis 2002, 17-20; for Livia’s villa and for further references, see Messineo 2001; Settis 2002). Both have splendid gardens painted on their walls. As with most of the actual gardens found in towns around Vesuvius, these two examples were possibly used as dining rooms (on the garden paintings, see Jashemski 1979, 55-87).

Rectangular Room At Baiae A later, yet interesting example is located on the Bay of Baiae. The room is now submerged underwater due to bradysism. It first came to light in 1959 and was excavated in 1980-1983 (see Sciarelli 1983; Andreae 1994; Zevi 1996). This rectangular room resembles a grotto, seems to have been constructed in the 1st century A.D., and probably belonged to the Emperor Claudius. It is

221

METTE CATHERINA HERMANNSEN connected to him because of the portrait statues of members of his family that were set up on display in the side niches. Along with the portrait statues, two statues of Dionysos were also placed in the niches. At the end of the room an apse was decorated with pumice. Two statues of a naked male carrying a wineskin and Odysseus offering a cup of wine to a now missing Cyclops were found there in situ. The Odysseus statue functioned as an elaborate fountain since lead piping allowed water to spout out from the cup (Sciarelli 1983, fig. 22). The klinae and the ceramics found inside the room suggest that it was used for dining.

ability to cool and refresh the area around itself. Another element of water that the Romans highly appreciated was the sound. This is mentioned explicitly by Pliny the Younger as he describes the sound of a small fountain as a “pleasing murmur” at his villa in Tuscany (Plin. Ep.5.6.22.). Pliny gives a detailed description of the water in his villa at Tuscany. Also in this letter he describes the views from different rooms, which must therefore also be considered important. The sound of water was also appreciated by Aulus Gellius, who praized the villa of Herodes Atticus in Kefisia, Attika, with the following words: “. . . the charm of the villa as a whole, which was everywhere melodious with splashing water and tuneful birds.” (Gell. NA 1.2.1.)

These three examples follow the same architectural plan: a rectangular room ending in an apse on one side and open on the opposite short side. In the apse there was sometimes water. Often their ceilings consisted of a barrel vault and there were niches built into the sidewalls. Usually they were situated in nature, isolated from the other buildings, and were richly decorated. A splendid view, the incorporation of water, and the isolated location are also elements that these have in common with the other grottoes discussed above.

As has been demonstrated above, the archaeological remains together with the ancient texts show that water and the view played a major part in the planning of Roman grottoes. Together with the often lavish decoration, these highly valued elements made the grottoes an ideal place for dinner parties and other relaxing activities. Antrum Cyclopis - The Cyclops Grotto

Views And Water

Another interesting conclusion that can be drawn from a comparison of these grottoes is that the same theme of sculptural decoration is found in many grottoes and grottoes in the form of rectangular rooms. Two episodes from the Odyssey are found displayed in sculptural groups, both with the Cyclops, Polyphemos. The first is the episode in which the Cyclops becomes drunk, which is illustrated with a wine cup offered to him by either one of Odysseus’ men or Odysseus himself. The second is the far more dangerous scene, the frozen moment before Odysseus and his men blind the drunken and sleeping Polyphemos. These groups may also tell us something about Roman decorative tastes as in addition to being found in grottoes these scenes are also found in two Imperial private contexts: 1. The Emperor Nero’s Domus Aurea in Rome: included a barrel vaulted ceiling that was decorated with pumice stones set around a central mosiac showing Odysseus offering Polyphemos a cup (Iacopi 1999, figs. 11-13). 2. The so-called Serapeum at Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli originally also held a sculptural rendition of the story of Polyphemos (Andrea 1996; Salza Prina Ricotti 2001, 241-263). This very special building was used as a dining hall. In the pool in front of it bits and pieces of a Skylla statue were found.

As stated above, the main element that all the grottoes have in common regarding their function as sites of recreation, relaxation, and pleasure is that the view outwards from them seems to have been of vital importance. Perhaps this is why most of them are sea grottoes where the view over water is spectacular (Fig. 13.6). Another element of major importance is the presence of water inside the grotto. Both natural spring water and - as the poet Propertius pointed out - water inlaid in the grottoes were incorporated into the construction plan. This should come as no surprise since water also played an important role in Roman private domestic architecture. Here water was also a relaxing element to enjoy in the peristyle, atrium, or in the garden. Many small or large fountains richly decorated with colorful glass mosaics, sea shells, and pumice were found in the cities buried by the ash from Vesuvius. The many different and elaborate pools that dominated part of the architecture of the Sperlonga Grotto are the most splendid examples of the incorporation of water into a grotto. The pools around the triclinium’s island were piscinae, pools that were used to breed fish (on piscinae in general, see Higginbotham 1997; on the Sperlonga pool, see Higginbotham 1997, 159-163; for Romans who had fish as pets, see Jashemski 1979, 108). This is an example of how the Romans were able to combine both the functional aspects of water as well as pleasurable ones. A Roman could then lay at table while feeding the fish swimming around underneath, perhaps even while he was eating a fish newly caught in the same piscinae.

It is interesting and must be stressed that the Polyphemos group and to a lesser degree also Skylla group are found in grottoes that can be connected with emperors. Also worth stressing is that the two groups with the same motif, Odysseus offering the Cyclops wine, have also been found in non-Imperial private contexts: 1. The villa at Colle Cesarano near Tivoli (Alvino 1996, 200-209, figs. 2-10) 2. The villa at Tortoreto near Chieti (Di Mino 1996, 210209, figs.1, 16-17).

A functional aspect of water, whether it takes the form of a pool, a cascade niche in the apse, or a fountain, is its

222

EMPERORS BETWEEN SKYLLA AND POLYPHEMOS: THE USE AND ABUSE OF ROMAN GROTTOES The two examples are both made in terracotta and both found in Republican villas, dating to the 2 nd or early 1st century B.C.. It is even possible that there would have been a Greek predecessor from the 1st century B.C. for this very iconography, if one accepts that the marble Odysseus from the Antikythera shipwreck was part of a Polyphemos group (on the Antikythera shipwreck, see Bol 1972; for the possible Odysseus theme on board the Antikythera ship, see Ridgway 2002, 69-75).

techniques normally found in wealthier Roman villa architecture such as sculpture, mosaics, marble panels. But by using pumice to decorate the ceiling of these manmade grottoes, the Romans made the rooms look more natural than they did naturally and did so in a very artificial way that apparently fit their tastes. Thus these “artificial” grottoes represent a combination of nature and architecture/art. Even though we do not have absolute evidence that the grottoes were used primarily as dining rooms and for recreational use, all the archaeological and literary evidence point in this direction.

As pointed out recently by both Sorcha Carey and Michael Squire (Carey 2002; Squire 2003), the Polyphemos topic is indeed appropriate for sculptural display in a grotto. The Cyclops lives in a cave and is thereby the very essence of raw nature. Finally, this choice of sculpture also has a humorous twist when put on display in a dining room since the Cyclops also eats his “guests”. It is further very interesting to note that both the Cyclops and Skylla groups are found in grottoes that are connected to emperors and that these emperors chose the Polyphmos sculpture for their dining rooms in their private palaces and villas. It is tempting to ask why the emperors wanted to be associated with the absolute worst host ever known (for another interpretation, see Stewart 1977; Weis 2000).

A natural comparanda is of course the villa gardens used for dining. They could also contain the small basins used as breeding ground for fish that were found in some grottoes, and they also incorporated water in the overall garden design like the grottoes. The nympheums built in connection with the gardens in the Vesuvian towns offer an especially striking parallel. These nympheums or garden fountains all have water as a central element and were decorated with pumice and sea shells in order to imitate nature. Great importance is also paid to the view that can be enjoyed from them. All the grottoes were owned by only the most wealthy Romans or by emperors. Perhaps the upper class not only loved eating in nice places with a good view, but also enjoyed a good laugh and the reminder that their host would never be as bad as Polyphemos.

Conclusions All the grottoes treated here began as natural caves that were transformed into artificial man-made rooms by the use of architectural elements such as walls, ceilings, and floors. They were all richly decorated using ordinary

223

METTE CATHERINA HERMANNSEN De Grummond, N.T. and B.S. Ridgway, eds. 2000. From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, Berkeley.

Bibliography Alvino, G. 1996. “Il IX Libro dell’Odissea: l’Offerta della Coppa di Vino. Il Gruppo Fittile di Colle Cesarano e il Gruppo Scultoreo di Efeso,” in Ulisse. Il Mito e la Memoria, B. Andreae and C.P. Presicce, eds., Rome, pp. 200-209.

Devoti, L. 2000. Itinerari nella Campagna Romana Castrum Candulphi - Castel Gandolfo, Velletri. Di Mino, M.R.S. 1996. “I’Uomo Ricco d’Astuzie Raccintami, o Musa (Odissea I,1) il Complesso di Statue Filttili del Ninfeo di Tortoreto,” in Ulisse. Il Mito e la Memoria, B. Andreae and C.P. Presicce, eds., Rome, pp. 210-219.

Amendolea, B. 1987. “I due Ninfei del lago Albano in Alcuni Disegni ed Incisioni del XVII, XVIII e XIX secolo,” Documenta Albana 9, pp. 29-49. Andreae, B. and B. Conticello. 1974. Die Skulpturen von Sperlonga, (AntP 14), Berlin.

Federico, E. and E. Miranda, eds. 1998. Capri Antica. Dalla Preistoria alla Fine dell´Età Romana, Naples.

Andreae, B. 1994. “Zur Einheitlichkeit der Statuenausstattung im Nymphäum des Kaisers Claudius bei Baiae,” in Die Regierungszeit des Kaisers Claudius (41-54 n. Chr.) (Umbruch oder Episode, Symposium Freiburg 16.-18. Feb.1991), V.M. Strocka, ed., Mainz am Rhein, pp. 221-243.

Giuliani, C.F. 1970. Forma Italia, Tibur I, (Vol. VI), Rome. Higginbotham, J. 1997. PISCINAE: Artificial Fishponds in Roman Italy, Chapel Hill.

———. 1996. “I Gruppi di Polifemo e di Scilla a Villa Adriana,” in Ulisse. Il Mito e la Memoria, B. Andreae and C.P. Presicce, eds., Rome, pp. 342-345.

Isager, J. 1991. Pliny on Art and Society, London. Iacopi, G. 1963. L’Antro di Tiberio a Sperlonga, (Monumenti Romani 4), Rome.

———. 1999. Odysseus. Mythos und Erinnerung, München.

Iacopi, I. 1999. Domus Aurea, Rome.

Andreae, B. and C.P. Presicce, eds. 1996. Ulisse. Il Mito e la Memoria, Rome.

Jashemski, W.F. 1979. The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius I, New Rochelle.

Andrén, A. 1980. Capri. From the Stone Age to the Tourist Age, Göteborg.

———. 1993. The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius II, New Rochelle.

Balland, A. 1967. “Une Transposition de la Grotte de Tibère à Sperlonga; Le Ninfeo Bergantino de Castelgandolfo,” MÉFR LXXIX, pp. 421-501.

Kunze, C. 1996. “Zur Datierung des Laokoon und der Skyllagruppe aus Sperlonga,” JdI 111, pp. 139-223.

Beard, M. and J. Henderson. 2001. Classical Art. From Greece to Rome, Oxford.

Kyrle, G. 1998. Le Grotte dell’Isola di Capri (edited and translated by E. Mazzetti), Florence.

Bol, P.C. 1972. Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes von Antikythera, (MdI-BH 2), Berlin.

Lavagne, H. 1988. Operosa Antra. Recherehes sur la Grotte à Rome de Sylla à Hadrien, (BÉFAR 272), Rome.

Carey, S. 2002. “A Tradition of Adventures in the Imperial Grotto,” GaR 49, pp. 44-61. ———. 2003. Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture. Art and Empire in the Natural History, Oxford.

Littlewood, A.R. 1987. “Ancient Literary Evidence for the Pleasure Gardens of Roman Country Villas,” in Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, E.B. MacDougall, ed., (Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 10), Washington DC, pp. 9-30.

Cassieri, N. 2000. La Grotta di Tiberio e il Museo Archeologico Nazionale Sperlonga, Rome.

Liverani, P. 1989. L`Antiquarium di Villa Barberini a Castel Gandolfo, Vatican City.

Conticello, B. 1996. “Il Gruppo di Scilla e della Nave,” in Ulisse. Il Mito e la Memoria, B. Andreae and C.P. Presicce, eds., Rome, pp. 280-315.

———. 1996. “L’Antro del Ciclope a Castel Gandolfo. Ninfeo Bergantino,” in Ulisse. Il Mito e la Memoria, B. Andreae and C.P. Presicce, eds., Rome, pp. 332-341.

De Fine Licht, K. 1974. “Antrum Albanum. Report on a Measurement Survey Conducted at Ninfeo Bergantino near Castel Gandolfo,” AnalRom 7, pp. 37-66.

Lugli, G. 1913. “Lo Scavo Fatto nel 1841 nel Ninfeo detto Bergantino sulla Riva del lago Albano,” BullCom 41, pp. 89-148.

224

EMPERORS BETWEEN SKYLLA AND POLYPHEMOS: THE USE AND ABUSE OF ROMAN GROTTOES Maiuri, A. 1931. “Grotte Ninfei Imperiali nell’Isola di Capri,” BdA 25, pp. 149-160.

Sear, F. 1977. Roman Wall and Vault Mosaics, Heidelberg.

Messineo, G., ed. 2001. A.D. Gallinas Albas. Villa di Livia, (BullCom Suppl. 8), Rome.

Settis, S. 2002. Le Pareti Ingannevoli. La Villa di Livia e la Pittura di Giardino, Rome.

Mingazzini, P. 1955. “Le Grotte di Matermania e dell´Arsenale a Capri,” ArchCl 7, pp. 139-163.

Sciarelli, G.T., ed. 1983. Baia. Il Ninfeo Imperiale Sommerso di Punta Epitaffio, Naples.

Neudecker, R. 1988. Die Skulpturen- Ausstattung Römischer Villen in Italien, Mainz am Rhein.

Squire, M. 2003. “Giant Questions: Dining with Polyphemus at Sperlonga and Baiae,” Apollo, pp. 29-37.

Neuerburg, N. 1965. L’Architettura delle Fontane e dei Ninfei nell’Italia Antica, Naples

Stewart, A.F. 1977. “To Entertain an Emperor: Sperlonga, Laokoon and Tiberius at the Dinner-Table,” JRS 67, pp. 76-90.

Ridgway, B.S. 2000. “The Sperlonga Sculptures: The Current State of Research,” in From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, N.T. De Grummond and B.S. Ridgway, eds., Berkeley, pp. 78-91. ———. 2002. Hellenistic Sculpture III: The Styles of Ca. 100-31 B.C., Madison,Wisconsin.

Weis, H.A. 2000. “Odysseus at Sperlonga. Hellenistic Hero or Roman Heroic Foil?” in From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, N.T. De Grummond and B.S. Ridgway, eds., Berkeley, pp. 111-165. Zevi, F. 1996. “Claudio e Nerone: Ulisse a baia e nella domus aurea,” in Ulisse. Il Mito e laMmemoria, B. Andreae and C.P. Presicce, eds., Rome, pp. 316-331.

Salza Prina Ricotti, E. 2001. Villa Adriana. Il sogno di un imperatore, Rome.

225

METTE CATHERINA HERMANNSEN

Figure 13.1. Ground plans of the Sperlonga Grotto and the Ninfeo Bergantino (Drawn to the same scale. With kind permission by Kjeld de Fine Licht).

Figure 13.3. Ground plan of the Grotto dell´Arsenale (Illustration by M. Hermannsen based on Kyrle).

Figure 13.2. Ground plan of the Blue Grotto (Illustration by M. Hermannsen based on Kyrle).

Figure 13.4. View into the Matermania Grotto (Photo by M. Hermannsen).

226

EMPERORS BETWEEN SKYLLA AND POLYPHEMOS: THE USE AND ABUSE OF ROMAN GROTTOES

Figure 13.6. View out of Grotto dell´ Arsenale (Photo by M. Hermannsen). Figure 13.5. Ground plan of the MatermaniaGrotto. (Illustration by M. Hermannsen based on Kyrle).

227

WIEBKE FRIESE sias in the Homeric Odyssey (around 700-650 B.C.). Being pressed by her lover Odysseus to reveal to him the way to his home island Ithaka, the witch Kirke send him to the entrance of the underworld to ask the dead: “There is a rock, and the meeting place of the two roaring rivers. There, hero, ...dig a pit… and around it pour a libation to all the dead, first with milk and honey, thereafter with sweet wine, and in the third place with water, and sprinkle on it white barley meal… Then many ghosts of men that are dead will come forth. … and the seer will quickly come to you, and he will tell you your way” (Hom. Od. 10.515-10.539).

14 “Through The Double Gates Of Sleep” (Verg. Aen. 6.236. ): Cave-Oracles In Graeco-Roman Antiquity Wiebke Friese Introduction In Graeco-Roman Antiquity the consultation of the divine through an oracle was the most powerful guidance a human being could get. The variety of divination rituals was countless, reaching from the interpretation of a god’s statue’s movements during a procession in ancient Egypt (Diod. Sic. 17.50-17.51) to the close examination of the eating habits of the holy chickens on the Capitol Hill in Rome (Plin. HN 10.48). While the early oracles in Egypt or the Near East were mainly connected to a particular deity or ritual, in ancient Greece they were established at specific places in nature, primarily groves, sources or caves.

Unfortunately, the location of the nekyomantion, where Odysseus met Tiresias, is still ambiguous. Herodotos and Pausanias placed it at the Acheron Valley (Hdt. 5.92; Paus. 9.30.6) in modern Epirus. There, in the middle of the 20th century Sotirios Dakaris identified the oracle with a Hellenistic vaulted cave-like crypt, excavated underneath the monastery of St. John Prodromos at Mesopotamo (Fig. 14.1.) (Dakaris 1993). Following the Homeric text, he reconstructed a labyrinth-like sanctuary, dedicated to the underworld goddess Persephone, whose 7th-5th century statuettes were found inside the building and in a treasury, buried 100 m down the hill. According to Dakaris the enquirers were left in complete darkness for several hours, performing purification and sacrifice rituals, before they were let in an inner chamber, where they were supposed to meet the dead. Dakaris also reconstructed parts of several iron wheels, which were found in this area, to a kind of deus ex machina machinery, which was used by the priest for a dramatic illumination of the dead’s appearance.

While the remains of the best-known cave oracle - the vapour-covered adyton of Delphi are probably destroyed by earthquakes, many others could be reconstructed (for a classical approach to caves in Antiquity, see Ustinova 2009, also Egelhaaf-Gaiser and Rüpke 2000, 155-176). In the following article I present a short overview on the archaeological and written material of cave oracles and their connected deities in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, followed by a discussion about their ritualistic use and their architectural development from Greek to Roman times.

How convincing Dakaris’ argumentation might be and how mystic the place itself appear to the modern visitor it is not very likely, that such an elaborate sanctuary is not mentioned by any ancient author and misses any inscription or dedication. Therefore the German archaeologist Dietrich Baatz suggested a completely different interpretation of the place (Baatz 1999). He believes that the superstructure belongs to a Hellenistic fortification, the vaulted chamber was used as a central storage room and the iron wheels were part of catapults, which were burned down, when the building was finally destroyed by the Romans in the 2nd century B.C.

The Case Study The Gates To The Underworld. Death Oracle Caves In Greece And Rome The Graeco-Roman mythology refers to several places as the entrance of the Hades, foremost in connection with the final labour of Herakles, who was send by the king Eurystheus to capture and bring back alive Kerberos, the guard-dog to the gates of the underworld. Since the 5th century B.C. all of these places were associated with the Greek term nekyomantion, which can be translated as “place of necromancy” or “oracle of death” (Ogden 2001, xix; Friese, 2010b, 29-40). From the literary sources we also know about other nekyomantia in Phygalia in Arkadia (Plut. Mor. 555C), a Thessalic oracle (Scholiast Euripides Alkestis 1128) and the Stymphalos lake at Arkadia (Aesch. Psychagogoi F273A), but none of these places were of supraregional importance and none of them has been found so far.

Nevertheless, even if Baatz’s explanation of the remains themselves seems to be more rational, the location of the nekyomantion must be nearby, as the similarities between the literary descriptions of the place and the topographical reality are obvious. The monastery hill, indeed, lies “on a rock/hill, at the meeting place of two roaring rivers” and also the Homeric description of Odysseus’s journey can be traced in the geography of the Acheron Valley. Furthermore, the presence of the 6th-5th century treasury of Persephone statuettes definitely refers to a cult place of this goddess near by. While Daniel Ogden suggests that the rites took place at a natural, but architecturally not specified area at the lakeside (Ogden 2001, 49), it is also likely that the nekyomantion was located in a natural cave

The Nekyomantion Of Odysseus Near Ephyra The first bequeathed evidence for necromancy in Greek literature is Odysseus’ consultation of the dead seer Tire

228

“THROUGH THE DOUBLE GATES OF SLEEP” (VERG. AEN. 6.236. ): CAVE-ORACLES IN GRAECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY

at the slope of the hill, which was architecturally modified in later times, to meet the demands of the ritual.

The Sibyllian Cave At Cumae Another possible setting of the Homeric nekyomantion is the lake Avernus, a flooded volcanic crater, located about 20 km east of Naples. Strabon wrote, that “Avernus is shut in by steep beetling banks, …which were formerly covered with a wild wood of black and impenetrable trees. These made the gulf into a home for shades, because of superstition …there was a source there of drinkable water by the sea, but all keep back from this, considering it to be the water of the Styx… the oracle is situated somewhere nearby and priests guide through the progress, who managed the place under contract...” (Strabon 5.4.5). At the latest since Virgil’s Aeneid, the area is also connected with the cave oracle of the Cumaean Sibyl, a prophetess, who gave her answers in ecstatic trance (Verg. Aen. 6.237-6.242). Virgil describes the place Aeneas descends into the underworld, as “a deep cave, huge with vast gape, rugged, safe because of the black lake and the darkness of the groves” (Verg. Aen. 6.237-6.239). Indeed, the scenery seems to be perfect for the entrance to the underworld. Still, the surrounding Phlegraean fields are full off active volcanic fumaroles, hot springs, and mephitic gases. The slopes of the hills surrounding the lake are covered with a dark forest and the soft tufa rock abounded in natural and man-made caves. However, none of them could have been identified as the nekyomantion cave, yet. A huge vaulted chamber, the so-called Grotta della Sibilla at the south side of the lake turned out to be an military supply tunnel (Amalfitano 1990, 174-175) and a tunnel at the Roman resort Baiae was probably not used as a death oracle (Paget 1967), but for the warm water supply of the near by bath. At least the cave underneath the akropolis of nearby Cumae, if not used as an oracle in the first place, was already shown to ancient tourists as the Sibyl’s Cave (Maiuri 1958; Pagano 1985-1986). This 50 m man-made tunnel with three cisterns at the east and closable window-like openings at the western sea-side, ends before a vaulted chamber, which could be closed by a iron door (Fig.14. 4).

The Nekyomantion Of Herakleia Fortunately, the nekyomantion of Herakleia Pontike (Fig. 14.2), at the south coast of the Black Sea, provides much better archaeological material. The city Herakleia was named after Herakles by the Megarians, who established a colony here at 560 B.C. but it is likely that there was a kind of oracle or death cult before that. In 1966 Wolfram Hoepfner located the cave with the help of the Late Antique writer Quintus Smyrnaeus, who described the oracle in the 3rd century A.D. as “a marvellous cave …with water running through and niches all around” (Quint. Smyrn. Post-Homerica 6.469-6.491). It is the middle of three caves on the south side of the so-called Acheron Valley (Hoepfner 1972). A narrow dromos-like entrance leads over a twisting stairway to a roughly rectangular chamber (45 m wide and 20 m deep), which is mostly flooded by water over a meter deep. Two polished stone pillars support the roof. At least on the east side the walls are worked. Small half round niches are tooled into three of the walls. On the south side is a plastered alcove, where Hoepfner suggests a cult statue of Herakles. Architectural fragments may indicate that there have been other structures within the chamber. Another narrow tunnel leads from the northwest-end to a small low unworked chamber, where the excavators found some human bones, which can be dated in Post-Roman times. While Hoepfner denies any Pre-Greek structures - but could not provide any other dating at all - a Pre-Greek cult could either have taken place in an unworked cave or a smaller chamber, which was enlarged in Greek times. The Nekyomantion Of Tainaron The sanctuary of Tainaron is situated at the north end of the Sternis Bay (Fig. 14.3) at the very South of the Peloponnese (Cummer 1978, 35-43; Schumacher 1993, 6287). According to Pomponius Mela, it was close to the tip of the promontory and close to a temple of Poseidon in a bay and in a grove (Pompon. 1.103). Pausanias mentioned it as a temple “made like a cave” (Paus. 3.25), though he was disappointed, that there was “no path in the underground from there”. What we see nowadays are the remains of a small cave above the beach, 50 m below a Hellenistic structure. Interestingly the Christian chapel build over these remains was dedicated to the Agioi Asomatoi, the “bodyless saints”, which reminds on the ancient ghosts. The cave is 15 m deep and 10-12 m wide. Its roof is collapsed. A 2 m thick ashlar wall, build on rock cut foundations and fitted with a doorway, closed the entrance. East of the entrance the natural rock has been trimmed to form a terrace. On the western side were cuttings for the erection of statues and stelai with the records of the sanctuary. Around the bay, several other structures were found, which might have been houses for priests and pilgrims.

The Plutonion Of Acharaka And Hierapolis While there is no nekyomantion attested for the area of Asia Minor - there is a similar group of sanctuaries related to the god Pluton - the so-called charonia or plutonia. Like the Greek death oracles, these cult places were established around caves. In Acharaka, about 5 km west of the ancient Nysa on the northern shore of the Maiandros River, Strabon describes a healing sanctuary of Pluton, with a temple for Pluton and Kore next to a holy grove and the charonion, a cave “by nature wonderful” (Strabon 14.1.44). The ill either stayed in the sanctuary, and let the priest sleep in the cave on their behalf to find a cure for their disease, or they were “left in the cave, to remain in quiet, like animals in their lurking-holes, without food for many days” (Strabon 14.1.44). For all other creatures the cave was dangerous, which was demonstrated in an annual ritual, when a bull

229

WIEBKE FRIESE was let into the cave, who then fell down and died immediately. Today one could find the remains of a peripteral limestone temple (6 x 12 columns) possibly built in Hellenistic times (Diest 1913, 60-77; Friese 2010a, 165-166, 386-387). Next to the temple there are several vaulted structures at the edge of a small canyon, which let to an open cave. Its walls show several man-made structures. Yellow sediment next to a small river at the bottom of the canyon might indicate a high level of sulphur in the water, which is typical for healing sources.

The Trophonios Oracle Of Leivadia Next to the healing cult of the Amphiaraos of Oropos, north of Athens, which was established at the very place, the hero descended into the earth (Hom. Od. 15.24315.255; Diod. Sic. 4.68.4) - the most popular hero oracle was the sanctuary of the Boeotian hero Trophonios, which was established in the 6th century B.C. and reorganized in Hellenistic times. While Pausanias and other ancient authors give a very valuable description of this popular oracle site, until today no remains of the sanctuary could be found for certain (Paus. 9.39.4; Plut. Mor. 590-592; Philostr. V A 8.19, for the site today, see Schachter 1984, 268; Turner 1994, 475; Bonnechère 2003, Friese 2010a, 142-144).

Not far away, there was another well known plutonion in the Apollon sanctuary of Hierapolis. South of the well preserved theatre of the ancient city is a walled courtyard with stoas at two sides. The now seen in antis temple was built in the 3rd century A.D. above a Hellenistic predecessor. Underneath its south side, which was built on solid rock, was the plutonion (Fig. 14.5) (Carettoni 1963-1964; Friese 2010a, 173-175, 389-390). Located in the back of a paved courtyard with several statue bases in situ, its entrance was a cleft in the natural rock vaulted by a roof. It leads to a small paved chamber with a narrow gap in its back wall. Behind it is a deep and dark chasm with a strong smelling river at its bottom. As the vapour could still be dangerous for the tourists visiting the nearby travertine terraces of Pamukkale, the entrance to the chamber is nowadays blocked. In Roman times Strabon described the plutonion as “full of vapour so misty and dense that one can scarcely see the ground” (Strabon 13.4.13). Only the Galloi, the eunuch priests of the Phrygian goddess Kybele, could enter the chamber without harm. According to Plinius, they would get into trance by breathing in the vapours from the cave and then become divine like the Pythia of Delphi (Plin. HN 2.207). Like in Acharaka, the priests demonstrated the danger of their business by leading animals in the inner chamber, which then died immediately (Strabon 13.4.14). A small rectangular room with benches on the terrace above the plutonion courtyard might be used as the theatron, mentioned by Kassios Dion, where people could sit and watch these demonstrations (Cass. Dio 68.27.3).

In a canyon south of the modern city one could see some artificial grottos with stone benches next to the source of the Herkyna River. Several stones and column fragments in the vicinity could have belonged to one of the temples that Pausanias is mentioning inside the temenos. Besides the temple of the hero himself he refers to a temple of the nymph Herkyna, as well as sanctuaries of Demeter Europe, Zeus Hyetios and the sons of Trophonios (Paus. 9.39.4). There was also a hospice and the so-called “bothros of Agamedes”, where the oracle client would sacrifice before he went to the oracle cave to meet the hero. On the top of the mountain at the end of the canyon local archaeologists excavated the remains of a Hellenistic temple dedicated to Zeus Basileus (Vallas and Faraklas 1969, 228-232). The location of the oracle cave itself is still controversial. According to Pausanias it “…is on the mountain above the sacred grove. A platform of white stone has been built around it... Within an enclosure is a chasm in the earth, not natural, but artificially constructed. The shape is like that of a potter’s kiln... They have not made a way down to the bottom… they bring a narrow portable ladder… After going down, one finds a hole between the construction and the bottom.” (Paus. 39.39.9-39.39.12). Following this description, it is very likely, that a natural cave of at least two chambers, was overbuild by a prestigious entrance structure. In the 20th century E. Waszink suggested that it was located at the site of a small Christian chapel built in the steep mountainside at the end of the canyon. Narrow stairs lead to an open niche carved into the stone. In its backside right next to the modern altar, is a hole, filled with water, which might lead to another deeper cave chamber (Waszink 1968, 23-30). The excavators of the akropolis, located the oracle in a round structure (3 m east) from the 3rd century A.D. southeast of the Zeus Basileus temple (Vallas and Faraklas 1969, 228-232). However, it is very unlikely that a mystic place like the oracle Cave of Trophonios should be erected directly next to the main temple on the akropolis. Furthermore, there are no natural or artificial structures underneath the round building dating before the 3rd century A.D. But as the oracle of Trophonios is mentioned by Herodotos as one of the oracles visited by Kroisos, it must have been a well known divination place already in the 5th century B.C. As Lee

Between God And Men: Hero Oracle Caves In Greece And Rome Ritually as well as mythologically related to the death oracles, though never mentioned with the term nekyomantion, were the cults of deified (dead) heroes. Usually they were established at the site of the hero’s real or mythical burial place or the place, where a hero descended into the earth (Kearns 1992, 65-99; Ekroth 2002). In this context, caves, as a kind of antechamber to the underworld, were very common. Cave oracles connected to a specific hero are known for Amphiaraios in Oropos, Herakles in Bura, Sarpedon in Lykia, Kalchas at the Monte Gargano in Apulia and Trophonios in Leivadia (for hero cults in general, see Antonacchio 1995; Ekroth 2002, for oracle heroes and their sanctuaries, see Friese 2010a, 40-52). As the last two provide the most interesting archaeological and written evidence, they should be introduced below.

230

“THROUGH THE DOUBLE GATES OF SLEEP” (VERG. AEN. 6.236. ): CAVE-ORACLES IN GRAECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY

Ann Turner and Pierre Bonnechère suggest, it is therefore more likely, that at the latest in Roman times, the sanctuary was divided into three main parts: The sacred source and grove in the canyon, the “official” buildings on the akropolis on the top of the mountain and the oracle cave “somewhere in between” (Turner 1994, 468; Bonnechère 2003, 32).

water of the Kastalia source. As it was said, that the visitors could hear but not see the priestess, there must be a kind of natural or artificial screen or wall between them. Various pictures show her sitting on a tripod above a chasm in the rock [Most famous, see red-figured cup found in Vulci, dated to ca. 440-430 B.C. (Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Antikensammlung, inv. no. F 2538)].

The Calchas Oracle At The Monte Gargano

According to Pausanias there was also a golden statue of Apollon, the omphalos, the grave of Dionysos and the sacred laurel tree inside the chamber (see reconstruction by Roux 1957, 476, fig. 1).

According to Strabon the oracle of the hero Kalchas was in a cave far up the Drium Mountain at the coast of Daunia, in the north of modern Apulia. Here, “those who consult the oracle sacrifice to Calchas shade a black ram and sleep in the hide” (Strabon 6.3.9, see also Lycoph. Alex. 592). In late Antiquity the site was taken over by the cult of the archangel Michael. As a Christian church, which still is a very popular pilgrimage site, overbuilds the cave since Carolingian times, no archaeological excavation took place there (see Keyserling 1987; Friese 2010a, 186-187). From the modern church an aisle leads down to the cave’s entrance (Fig. 14.6). In the western of two large natural niches the Christian altar probably replaces the pagan one. In the eastern niche is a water basin, which might indicate, that there was a source here in Antiquity. Several steps lead to another smaller chamber at the eastern side of the main cave. Today it is closed and can only be watched through a small hole in the wall. Inside, a narrow slope in the stone ends before a niche. In medieval times, the pilgrims had to squeeze in the hole and up the slope to meditate in front of an icon of the archangel. It might also be the place, where the ancient pagan pilgrims incubate to meet the hero in their dreams.

As nothing like this could be found inside the remains of the temple and only the Roman travel writers wrote about the central oracle ritual and it’s setting in the chasm. Most of the 20th century scholars believed that it was a trick of the Delphic priests in later times, to make the oracle more mystical and attractive (beginning with Oppè 1904, 214240). However, the area around Delphi is of high seismic activity. Many earthquakes shock the sanctuary during the ages. A natural gap in the stone could be closed and a small natural cave inside the temple blocked by stones and filled with earth. Moreover, the latest excavations conducted by Erik Hansen and Pierre Amandry could show, that the back of the adyton was shielded by a wall and might have been deeper than the rest of the temple, as it was not fully plastered (Amandry 1997, 271-282). Furthermore, in the early 21st century Jelle de Boer and John Hale detected two hidden faults that cross in the limestone exactly underneath the adyton, creating a path by which petrochemical fumes - especially ethylene - could rise to the surface to help induce visions (de Boer, Hale and Chanton, 707-710). Even if the importance of the gas is still discussed (Lehoux 2007, 41-56), it seems to be proofed that the oracle ritual took place at the site of a natural chasm, which was overbuild by a temple, when the cult became more popular.

Between Light And Darkness: Apollon Oracle Caves In Greece and Rome In Antiquity, Apollon was the god of divination par excellence with the largest amount of oracle sanctuaries of all deities - first and foremost Delphi, the best-known oracle in the ancient world. However, already Bernard C. Dietrich described the discrepancy between the musical and polis related image of the god and the chthonian setting of his oracle caves (Dietrich 1990, 168).

The Apollon Oracle Of Ptoion The oracle of Apollon at a mountain slope north of Thebes was said to be established by the local hero Ptoios. Since the 8th/7th century B.C. Apollon with the epithet Ptoios was the main oracle god here (Hdt. 8.135; Paus. 9.23.6). Next to the temple was a grotto with a source, where a priest would sit and give advice in an unknown language, after drinking from the sacred water.

The Apollon Oracle Of Delphi As Delphi was not only an oracle sanctuary but also a festival setting and an intraurban meeting place, the number and variety of buildings inside the temenos is huge. For this paper, I would like to concentrate on the central place of oracle ritual, the adyton underneath the Apollon temple.

The remains of the sanctuary could be found on three terraces. On the upper terrace, an archaic temple was rebuild in the 4th century B.C. Next to the temple is a small grotto, which might be natural in the beginning but extended by carving deeper in the stone and by adding a stone porch. Though no source can be detected in the vicinity of the grotto, it might be the one, where the priest gave oracle since classical times (for the sanctuary, see Ducat 1971; Schachter 1981, 52-72; Friese, 2010a, 152-154).

According to the written sources, only the Pythia, the priests and the most important oracle seekers were allowed to enter the adyton (Paus. 10.24.5, see also Plut. Mor. 438B). It was located at the back of the cella in an underground chamber, approached by stairways. Before the Pythia would enter the chamber, she drank from the

231

WIEBKE FRIESE leaves of a tree (Dodone) or the smoke of the altar fire (Olympia), the most creditable and impressive way of divination was to get in contact with the deities themselves or - even better - to be possessed by them (for the discussion on the reliability of Pythia’s Trance, see Maurizio 1995, 69-86; Friese, 2010a, 83-86). In most of the Greek Apollon oracles a male or female medium gave the answer to the oracle client. He/she was “seized by the god” through various rituals like drinking from sacred water (Klaros, Ptoios) or breathing in toxic vapours (Delphi, Hierapolis). On the other hand, the consultation of a nekyomantion or hero oracle was always a self-induced oracle experience. This means that the client had to evoke the impression of the dead/hero by himself. No priest accompanied the client in the central ritual or told him/her what to do or see.

The Apollon Oracle Of Klaros The sanctuary of Klaros, 2 km north of the ancient harbour of Notion at the coast of Asia Minor, is said to be founded by the seer Mopsos (Strabon 14.1.27). The written sources do not mention any particular buildings inside the temenos, only a sacred grove of ash trees (Paus. 7.5.10). Fortunately, the archaeological evidence is much better. The earliest votives (a bronze knife with a dedication to Apollon and some fibulae for Artemis from the 10th century B.C.) were found around an altar, probably dedicated to Artemis. A first cult building south of the Hellenistic temple is dated to the 6th century B.C. (for the votives, see Dewailly 2001, 365, for the excavations in Klaros, see de la Genière 1992, 195-208; Friese 2010a, 175-179). The oracle took place in an artificial underground chamber underneath the temple cella. After meeting the clients in front of the temple, the priest “descends into a cave and drinks a draught from a sacred spring, the man, who is commonly ignorant of letters and of poetry, utters a response in verse answering to the thoughts conceived in the mind of any inquirer” (Tac. Ann. 2.54). In fact, two staircases led from the pronaos to two underground narrow corridors, which met after turning their directions for several times under the temple cella in a small room. In its back, a door leads to another vaulted chamber with a water basin (for the sacred source?) next to its entrance and a bench (for the priest?) at its west wall. While the whole temple was erected in the 4th century B.C., the underground chambers were built or rebuilt in the Augustan period.

In both cases it was necessary to get the client in a state of mind, which could be described as “in the mood for a divine experience”. One option was to keep him/her in the sanctuary as long as possible before the central oracle ritual took place - by performing several preparation rites. Most of the sanctuaries provide buildings or space to accommodate the visitors. But while the visitors of a medium-induced oracles like Delphi and Klaros only had to perform several sacrifices, the clients of a death or hero oracle had to be much more involved. Pausanias tells us about the preparations of the Trophonios oracle of Leivadia and that the client had to stay in a hostel inside the sanctuary for more than two weeks, before he went to the hero. During this time the client had to fast, sacrifice, pray, and bath several times both day and night (Paus. 9.39). Also the patients in Acharaka stayed in the sanctuary for several days or weeks (Strabon 14.1.44). Most of the time, the client was accompanied by cultic staff, which surely told him/her what they had to await. In the end, the lack of sleep, the fasting in combination with the constant presence of the forthcoming, intensified by perpetual praying and contact with the priests, lad to a sensitive state of mind, in which the clients were more impressible for transcendental experience than in their daily life. Prepared like this, they finally went down the entrance to the underworld.

Meeting the Gods: Oracle Rituals In Graeco-Roman Landscape And Architecture As this short archaeological overview shows, all of the oracle-caves have a similar cult-architectural structure: they were situated in a more or less rough and mystic landscape, far away from any settlement and often surrounded by a sacred grove. In the nekyomantia and hero cults, we do not find a temple, but a cave as the place, where the oracle ritual took place. Only the oracle caves of Apollon (Delphi, Klaros) were overbuilt by prestigious temple buildings. These caves could be natural or architecturally modified in a way, that the entrance was either blocked or narrowed by walls to restrict the view. Inside the cave, natural or artificial niches or chambers would separate the caves in single sections. As water seems to play an important role in the divination ritual, most sanctuaries provided a water source or had access to a water basin in or near the cave.

To explain the way the divinities appear (to either the medium or the client), modern research provides different speculations. The Pythia was said to get into a trancelike status by drinking the water of the Kassotis source, chewing laurel leaves and/or inhaling the vapours coming out of the chasm beneath her feet (Paus. 10.24.7; Lucian Bis. acc. 1). The Ptoion and the Klarian priests drank from the sacred spring in the adyton before giving the answers in “foreign tongues” (Paus. 10.24.7; Tac. Ann. 2.54; Hdt. 8.135). However, while modern research is still arguing about a scientific explanation (for the Delphic Pythia, see e.g. Lehoux, 2007, 42-56) - for the ancient oracle client it was probably not important how the medium got into trance but that he/she was into this state at all.

So what happened inside these caves? Did the clients of ancient oracle really believe, they would meet the deity or did they fell for the line of a clever organized ritual dramatisation as it is suggested for Ephyra or for the Pythia at Delphi? To answer these questions, we have to differ between medium-induced and self–induced oracle experiences. While in some Greek oracles, the answer was read in the

To make an oracle client believe, that he/she was truly talking to the deity himself/herself was obviously much

232

“THROUGH THE DOUBLE GATES OF SLEEP” (VERG. AEN. 6.236. ): CAVE-ORACLES IN GRAECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY

more difficult. There are only few written sources about what actually happen during the evocation and most of them are more or less imprecise. Once more Pausanias tells us about the Trophonios consultation in Leivadia: “When one has gone down, one finds an opening… The man lays himself down on the floor with the barley-cakes mixed with honey, and thrusts his feet into the opening and pushes forward in his eagerness to get his knees inside it. Then the rest of his body is immediately dragged along and follows to engulf one caught in its current. Thereafter there is no one or same way in which those who have entered the shrine are instructed about the future, but sometimes a man hears, and sometimes another man sees” (Paus. 9.39).

Greek sanctuaries. An artificial wall in front of the entrance of the Tainaron Cave restricted the light and accessibility. At the Herakleia Cave, after passing the narrow dromos-like entrance, the client had to go down a twisting stairway, which stops right in front of a large sea. The other side was probably in complete darkness. The Livadeian inquirer was dragged feet forward through a narrow hole, without knowing what to expect on the other side. Underneath the Klarian temple the only way to the oracle chamber lead through two dark narrow dromoi. But while prehistoric cult participants used only the natural potential of the caves, at the latest since Roman times, the Graeco-Roman oracle sites were more or less frequently and deliberately artificially modified (for Roman grottos, see Hermannsen this volume). The entrance of the Tainaron Cave was prebuild with a sight restricting wall and a small antechamber. That of the Herakleian Cave was narrowed with a brick tunnel and several niches were built in the inside. The Trophonios Cave near Leivadia was probably re- or overbuild with an oven like superstructure and a ritual relevant architecture inside. The underground chamber of the Klarian temple was vaulted and maybe totally renewed. But in contrast to the competitive monumentalization of other Greek temple buildings, the artificial structures of these adytoi did not suit a representative purpose. Their designation was to intensify the ritual experience. Walls in front of the entrance cut off the light and restricted the view inside and outside a cave. This was made not only to relieve tension on the waiting client outside the cave, but also to intensify the privacy of the ritual inside. Therefore the clients in Delphi could never see the Pythia directly. Furthermore, the narrowing of the entrance of Herakleia and Leivadia had a direct physical impact on the clients, as they had to squeeze through it. This might also be the case for the dromoi in Klaros and the small cave in the west wall of the Kalchas Cave at Monte Gargano. The now following complete darkness, the undetermined proportions of space, intensified by features, like the spiral staircase in Herakleia or the labyrinth-like shape of the Klarian corridors, was meant to irritate the clients perception of space, as they should find themselves in the infinity of the Hades, but not in a small cave.

What followed, Plutarch describes for Timarchos, a student of Sokrates, who stayed in the cave for more than two days that: (Plut. Mor. 590)  “After praying in complete darkness for several hours, he reached a status between waking and dreaming. He then felt a painful hit on his head and that his soul left his body. He saw flickering colours, a glowing sea with islands and he heard a soft voice asking him, what he wanted. When he turned to see who was speaking, he felt another strong pain and lost consciousness. He then woke up, where he began his journey, in front of the cave”. This imprecise way, ancient authors wrote about the experiences inside the oracle caves speak for a trance (or dream) like status of the client, in which he/she either believed to see something/somebody or succumbed to an optical illusion. Some archaeologists argue, that the clients were led into a dark room, where the priests performed the evocation with complicated machinery or acted as the god themselves (Dakaris, 1993; Schachter 19811994, 3, 88). Others suggest that the client or medium was drugged before going down into the cave (for the clients, see Clark, 1968, 64, 73, for the Pythia, see Lehoux, 2007, 42-56). In contrast, some of the more recent interpretations by scholars assume, that the ghost answered the client while he/she was sleeping (Ogden 2001, 75-92). According to this, the inquirer went to sleep and received the prophecy in his/her dreams (incubation), possibly explained or translated by a priest in the next morning (for incubation see Renberg, 2006, 105-47; Ehrenheim 2009, 237-76; 2011; Renberg forthcoming). Incubation is stated e.g. for the healing oracle of Acharaka.

Conclusion To conclude, not only the ritual itself or it’s conducting staff, also the surrounding landscape, the natural as well as the architectural, has a direct influence on the believing and practising person (for the realtion between cult, ritual and landscape, see Friese 2010c). Or as Lynn Meskell suggests, religion and cult should always be considered as a multi-dimensional experience, in which the body of the participant acts as an “individuated site of interface and resolution between the biological, cultural and personal” (Meskell 1996, 3). This multi-dimensionality depends on the grade of individual involvement in a particular ritual. The more personal a ritual was (autoexperience), the more important was the individual physical and emotional experience and the more important

Whatever really happened during the ritual, it must have been of high importance for a successfully working oracle sanctuary, to have at least some control on the client’s experience. As the environment of a cult place was one of the few factors, which could be influenced or modified, it was therefore of high impact. As Ruth Whitehouse could show, already prehistoric cult caves had comparable characteristics to the ancient oracles. They had difficult access and restricted entrances, a minimal penetration of daylight, many stalagmites and stalactites and irregular structure of space that made it uncomfortable or irritating to walk in (Whitehouse 2001, 162, see also the contribution by Faro this volume). The same can be realized in

233

WIEBKE FRIESE function was to find a possibility to influence this. What the ancient oracle client expected from the mystical architecture of an oracle cave can finally be demonstrated at the example of the so-called Cumaean Sibyl’s Cave. Even if it was never used as an oracle, but only associated with it in Roman times, the structure provides all the features

mentioned above: a narrow entrance, a long dromos, which could be darkened by closing the western windows, water in the eastern cisterns and a closed chamber at the end of the tunnel, where the Sibyl was waiting to utter her prophecy.

234

“THROUGH THE DOUBLE GATES OF SLEEP” (VERG. AEN. 6.236. ): CAVE-ORACLES IN GRAECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY

Ehrenheim, H. Von. 2009. “Identifying Incubation Areas in Pagan and Early Christian Times,” Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 6, pp. 237-276.

Bibliography Amalfitano, P. 1990. I Campi Flegrei. Un Itinerario Archeologico, Venice.

———. 2011. Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times, Ph.D. diss., Stockholm University.

Amandry, P. 1997. “Recherches sur la Cella du Temple de Delphes,” in Oracle et Prophéties dans l’Antiquité, (Actes du Colloque de Straßbourg 15-17Juin 1995), J.-G. Heintz, ed., (Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le ProcheOrient et la Grèce Antiques 15), Paris, pp. 271-282.

Ekroth, G. 2002. The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Herocults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods, Liège. Friese, W. 2010a. Den Göttern so nah. Architektur und Topographie griechischer Orakelheiligtümer, Stuttgart.

Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greek, Lanham, Maryland.

———. 2010b. “Facing the Dead. Landscape and Ritual of Ancient Greek Death Oracles,” Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 3, pp. 29-40.

Baatz, D. 1999. “Wehrhaftes Wohnen. Ein befestigter hellenistischer Adelssitz bei Ephyra (Nordgriechenland),” AntW 30 (2), pp. 151-155.

———. 2010c. “Zwischen Kult und Kommerz. Architektur als erfahrbarer Raum in antikenOrakelheiligtümern,” Mosaik 1 (http://www.mosaikjournal.com/mosaik1/friese.pdf)

Bonnechère, P. 2003. Trophonios de Lébadée. Cultes et Mythes d'une Cité Béotienne au Miroir de la Mentalité Antique, (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 150), Leiden.

de la Genière, J. 1992. “Le Sanctuaire d’Apollon à Claros, Découvertes Récentes,” CRAI 1992, pp. 195-210.

Carettoni, G. 1963-1964. “Scavo del Tempi di Apollo a Hierapolis,” ASAtene 41-42, pp. 411-433.

Hoepfner, W. 1972. “Topographische Forschungen,” in Forschungen an der Nordküste Kleinasiens 1: Über die Frühgeschichte von Herakleia Pontike: Topographische Forschungen, D. Asheri and W. Hoepfner, eds., (Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris 5, Denkschriften, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-Historische Klasse), Vienna, pp. 37-46.

Clark, R.J. 1968. “Trophonios: The Manner of His Revelation,” TAPA 99, pp. 63-75. ———. 1977. “Vergil, Aeneid, 6, 40ff. and the Cumaean Sibyl’s Cave,” Latomus 36, pp. 482-495. Cummer, W. 1978. “The Sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron, Lakonia,” AM 93, pp. 35-43.

Kearns, E., 1992. “Between God and Man: Status and Functions of Heroes and Their Sanctuaries,” in Le Sanctuaire Grec, (20-25 August 1990, Vandœuvres-Genève), A. Schachter, ed., (EntrHardt 37), Genève, pp. 65-99.

Dakaris, I. 1993. The Nekyomantion of the Acheron (translated by W. Phelps), Athens. de Boer, J.Z., J.R. Hale and J. Chanton. 2001. “New Evidence for the Geological Origins of the Ancient Delphic Oracle (Greece),” Geology 29, pp. 707-710.

Keyserlingk, A. von 1987. Monte Gargano. Europas ältestes Michaelsheiligtum, Erlangen.

Dewailly, M., 2001. “Le Sanctuaire d’Apollon à Claros. Place et Function des Dieux d' apres leurs Images,” MÉFRA 113, pp. 365-382.

Lehoux, D. 2007. “Drugs and the Delphic Oracle,” CW 101 (1), pp. 41-56. Maiuri, A. 1958. The Phlegraean Fields, Rome.

Diest, W. von. 1913. Nysa A.D. Maenandrum nach Forschungen und Aufnahmen in den Jahren 1907 und 1909 (JdI-EH 10), Berlin.

Maurizio, L., 1995. “Anthropology and Spirit Possession: A Reconsideration of the Pythia’s Role at Delphi,” JHS 115, pp. 69-86.

Dietrich, B.C. 1990. “Oracles and Divine Inspiration,” Kernos 3, pp. 157-174.

Meskell, L. 1996. “The Somatization of Archaeology: Institutions, Discourses, Corporeality,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 29 (1), pp. 3-16.

Ducat, J. 1971. Les kouroi du Ptoion, Paris. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U. and J. Rüpke. 2000. “Orte des Erscheinens, Orte des Verbergens. Höhlen in Kult und Theologie,” Orbis Terrarum 6, pp. 155-176.

Ogden, D. 2001. Greek and Roman Necromancy, Princeton and Oxford.

235

WIEBKE FRIESE Oppé, A.P., 1904. “The Chasm at Delphi,” JHS 24, pp. 214-240.

Schumacher, R.W.M. 1993. “Three Related Sanctuaries of Poseidon: Geraistos, Kalauria and Tainaron,” in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, eds., London and New York, pp. 62-87.

Paget, R.F. 1967. In the Footsteps of Orpheus: The Story of the Finding and Identification of the Lost Entrance to Hades, the Oracle of the Dead, the River Styx and the Infernal Regions of the Greeks, London.

Turner, L.A., 1994. The History, Monuments and Topography of Ancient Levadia: Intra- and Extra-urban Landscape, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennylvania.

Pagano, M. 1985-1986. “Una Nuove Interpretazione del Cosiddetto ‘Antro della Sibilla’ a Cuma,” Puteoli 9-10, [1985-86], pp. 83-120.

Ustinova, Y. 2009. Caves and the Ancient Greek Mind: Descending Underground in the Search for Ultimate Truth, Oxford.

Renberg, G.H. 2006. “Was Incubation Practiced in the Latin West?” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 8, pp. 105147.

Vallas, E. and N. Faraklas. 1969. “Περί του Μαντείου του Τροφωνίου εν Λεβαδεία,” AAA 2, pp. 228-233.

———. [forthcoming]. Where Dreams May Come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden.

Waszink, E. 1968. “The Location of the Oracle of Trophonius at Leivadia,” BABesch 43, pp. 23-30

Roux, G., 1957. “Le Sanctuaire Argien d’Apollon Pythéen,” REG 70, pp. 474-487.

Whitehouse, R.D. 2001. “A Tale of Two Caves. The Archeology of Religious Experience in Mediterranean Europe,” in The Archeology of Cult and Religion, P.F. Biehl and F. Bertemes, eds., Budapest, pp. 161-167.

Schachter, A. 1981-1994. Cults of Boiotia, (BICS Suppl. 38, Vols. 1-4), London.

236

“THROUGH THE DOUBLE GATES OF SLEEP” (VERG. AEN. 6.236. ): CAVE-ORACLES IN GRAECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY

Figure 14.1. Ephyra. Excavation Site Plan (after Dakaris 1993, 15).

Figure 14.3. Sternis Bay. Excavation Site Plan (after Ogden 2001, 36 fig. 6).

Figure 14.2. Herakleia Pontike. Cave II (after Hoepfner 1972, pl. 5).

Figure 14.4. Cumae. So called Sibyl’s Cave“ (after Amalfitano 1990, 289).

237

WIEBKE FRIESE

Figure 14.5. Hierapolis. Excavation Site Plan of the Apollo Temple (after Friese 2012, 173). Figure 14.6. Monte Gargano. Grotto of Saint Michael (after Keyserlingk 1987, 241 fig. 40-41).

238

NON-RITUAL USE OF CAVES IN THE CLASSICAL AND LATE ROMAN PERIODS: THE CASE OF ATTIKA cerning water sources, not all caves that might have been held to be sacred were necessarily proper shrines, in the sense of being loci of ritual. In general, the function of each cave must be determined and its function argued for from the nature of the site, the artifactual evidence, and its context or relation to other sites; that is, we must go about interpreting cave function using the same evidence we use to determine the function of open sites.

15 Non-Ritual Use Of Caves In The Classical And Late Roman Periods: The Case Of Attika Jere Wickens Introduction

Classical Times

Discussion of Greek caves used in Classical through Roman times most often focuses on their use as cult caves. Certainly cult caves in the Classical and, to a lesser degree, the Late Roman periods, both periods of relatively intensive or extensive cave use in Attika, form a prominent group among the caves with evidence of use. Yet not all the caves used in these periods were sacred or loci of ritual. In this paper I would like to focus on non-ritual use of Attic caves and rockshelters in these two periods and to discuss a number of other functions the caves may have served. Many of the non-ritual uses can be labeled “opportunistic,” in the sense that available caves were put to a variety of uses depending on the needs of the people and the suitability of the caves for those purposes. The fact that it is a cave per se may be of relatively little symbolic importance to the user, although that it is a cave may provide the characteristics necessary to fulfill the need of the user. Such uses, although often relatively minor, deserve attention for a number of reasons: to widen the expected range of potential cave uses, to prevent ritual use from becoming the “default” function of caves in historic periods, to counter the view that caves in general were in the past considered to be “special” places, set off by their very nature from the mundane, secular world, and because minor use of rural caves can be an indicator of a relatively extensively or intensively used countryside. This focus on non-ritual cave use in historic times is perhaps a somewhat ironic corollary to the now growing awareness that Neolithic caves might have served as ceremonial or symbolic places in response to the traditional view that Neolithic caves were mainly used for some form of habitation or other utilitarian use.

In the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. the incidence of cave use in Attika was the highest of any period in antiquity. Twenty-nine caves and rockshelters are known to have evidence of definite use (Wickens 1986, nos. 1, 9, 14, 17, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, and 66; and Lohmann 1993, AN 1 and CH39), and 13 were possibly used (Wickens 1986, nos. 5, 6, 15, 18, 24, 26, 34, 38, 46, 48, 60, 63, and 64). Perhaps as many as ca. 20 of these were sacred or cult caves; 13 were certainly so (Wickens 1986, nos. 14, 20, 39, 43, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 61, 65 and 66, and Lohmann 1993, AN1, possibly also Wickens 1986, nos. 1, 33, 40, 46, 58, 63, and 64). Most of these have been excavated and identified as cult caves, many of them dedicated to the Nymphs and Pan, by a number of elements or artifacts, including inscriptions; inscribed and uninscribed sculptural or ceramic votives; figurines; miniature vessels; and vase shapes found in great numbers, which alone implies ritual. These include aryballoi, lekythoi, cups, and, in the case of the Nymphs, loutrophoroi; often the pots are decorated fine wares. Some caves are also within known open shrines (on the criteria for identifying ritual sites, especially from survey material, see e.g. Alcock 1994.) Most of the remaining 22 caves, 12 certainly used (Wickens 1986, nos. 9, 17, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 41, 59, 62, and Lohmann 1993, CH 39), and 10 possibly used (Wickens 1986, nos. 5, 6, 15, 18, 24, 26, 34, 38, 48, and 60), were not excavated and do not provide enough evidence to permit a precise determination of the nature of their use, yet either they have no such positive evidence of cult, or they were certainly not places of ritual. Scant evidence itself is a characteristic of many of these caves; most seem to have been visited only sporadically or occasionally, probably for a variety of purposes such as temporary shelters, storage places, water sources, or simply dumps. In general there is little or no evidence of extensive or long-term habitation in any of the Classical caves.

It should not be assumed that the population of Attika, even in the Classical period, viewed caves and rockshelters as inherently sacred (Zuntz 1971, 255). Most caves were not used at all, much less converted into shrines. The caves that were shrines probably became so for a number of different reasons and not simply because they were caves. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that most caves or caves in general were viewed with a sense of awe or dread. Caves were believed to have been the original home of men (see for example, Hom. Hymn Heph; Pseudo-Lucian Amores 34), but they represented man's uncivilized past, the home, for example, of the Cyclops in the Odyssey (Borgeaud 1988, 4950); the more primitive “Arcadian” life was not romanticized until Late Classical and Hellenistic times. Yet even the romanticization of such a life, of which caves may have been taken to be symbolic, would not make them automatically sacred. Furthermore, as I argue below con-

Admittedly nearly all the evidence from these caves is surface finds. One excavated cave, Kitsos (Wickens 1986, no. 1), however, also had only slight Classical material. It is not included here, since among the few finds were two figurines, indicating that it might have been visited for ritual purposes. Yet if it was, compared to the other Attic sacred caves, it was a minor, seldom visited shrine. The finds from three other Attic caves would not be out of place at a shrine, but no certain evidence of ritual is known from them; they are included among the non-ritual caves. A fragment of a black glaze column krater, found at Kokkinovouni Cave (Wickens 1986, no.

239

JERE WICKENS 15), is the only known Classical sherd from the site. Cup/skyphos and/or oinochoe fragments came from the Wolf Cave (Wickens 1986, no. 32) and from Kommeno Lithari Cave 1 (Wickens 1986, no. 9), where there was also a lekanis fragment. Yet with the possible exception of the krater fragment, these sherds could easily be debris from other uses of the cave. Even the krater could have been used in an elaborate “picnic” or feast at or near the cave without the cave having been a place of ritual.

source of water, used no doubt for domestic as well as ritual purposes. The Pnyx Cave fountain (Wickens 1986, no. 59) is a similar case. There is no evidence that it was part of a larger shrine, although a niche there may indicate that the fountain was sacred, probably also to the Nymphs. Its main function, however, was as a water source, and I classify it here as a non-ritual cave. Most of the known rural Attic caves with water sources are caves sacred to the Nymphs and Pan such as the Nympholeptou Cave (the Pan Cave) at Vari, the Pendeli Nymph Cave, the Marathon (Oinoe II) Pan Cave, and Lychnospilia (the Lamp Cave) on Parnes (Wickens 1986, nos. 20, 39, 43, and 47). In these cases, as at the Klepsydra, the water need not have been restricted to ritual purposes but was probably tapped by shepherds and other travelers. The Keratea Cave (Wickens 1986, no. 5), high on the eastern end of Keratovouni in southern Attika, was also possibly visited in the Classical period by shepherds and others for shelter and water from its pools of drip water, as was the case in earlier and later periods. There is a hidden water source at the Daveli Cave at the Spilia quarry on Pendeli (Wickens 1986, no. 38). The cave may only have been uncovered during quarrying activities, thus in Classical times at the earliest. There is no artifactual evidence for its Classical use, but it would certainly have been known to the quarry workers, who could have found and tapped the source, as well as using the large cave as a shelter or storage area (e.g., for tools) for themselves and others.

Nineteen of the 22 caves with no evidence of ritual are located in rural Attika, but it is worthwhile first to mention some urban caves, since for two, Panagia Chrysospiliotissa and the Pynx Cave Fountain (Wickens 1986, nos. 62 and 59), we have certain knowledge of their use. The first of these provides a good example of an opportunistic, non-ritual use of a cave. The cave chapel, above the Theater of Dionysos on the South Slope of the Akropolis, was first used in 320-19 B.C. when Thrasyllos built his choregic monument into it (Travlos 1971, 562-565; Wickens 1986, no. 62). This was a creative use of a cave, but that it was a cave was incidental to its function. In fact, the cave was masked by an architectural façade (for the restoration, see Welter 1938 and Townsend 1982, 194-197). Thrasyllos wanted to build an elaborate choregic monument in a prominent place, and the cave, perhaps newly exposed with the cutting of the katatomé, provided the perfect setting. By taking advantage of the cave, Thrasyllos was able to erect a sumptuous building façade without building a whole building, competing, less expensively, with Nikias, who in the same year did erect a building as his choregic monument (Travlos 1971, 357359). The cave could be said to be sacred only in the sense that as a choregic monument it is associated with or dedicated to Dionysos. The mere fact that Thrasyllos was allowed to use the cave also implies that even on the Akropolis, caves were not automatically sacred or inviolate. That Thrasyllos was able to appropriate it also raises interesting questions about the private use of space, whether caves or open space, in such a public area (see Wilson 2000, 206-212 for a discussion of these choregic monuments and their setting.)

The evidence for the use of the other non-ritual rural caves consists usually of only a few sherds found at or near each. The shapes represented are cup, mug, bowl, amphora, jug or oinochoe, lekanis, a possible lekythos, moldmade bowl, lamp, beehive, and roof tiles. Both black-glaze and plain wares are represented. Some of these shapes can be found at shrines, but distinctive ritual artifacts are for the most part not represented, and at the same time some of these are shapes that would not be expected at shrines. The one cave at is, again, that the sherds from the sites are nearly all surface finds, but we might still expect some more distinctive ritual artifacts such as figurines or miniatures to be found, as they are at some unexcavated sites; see AN 1 near Anayssos (Lohmann 1993, 494) and the Leontari Cave (the Lion Cave) on the northeastern slopes of Hymettos (Wickens 1986, no. 33; Küpper 1990; Karali and Mavridis 2005; Karali, Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2005; 2006). One exception is the Prophetes Elias Varathron (Wickens 1986, no. 25), discussed below. Many caves such as Kouvara, Tigani, Philiati, Bibesi, the Wolf Cave, and Vourvatsi (Wickens 1986, nos. 6, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 18, for no. 18, see also Lohmann 1993, 96-97), are relatively small to mid-sized, open spaces, located on relatively low hills or the lower slopes of Hymettos, or, in the case of Philiati, in the arable plain just east of Hymettos. They are all relatively close to Classical deme centers and easily accessible from both arable land and land that would have been classified as eschatia, providing pasturage, secondary farm land, and access to wild plant resources (Lewis 1973, 210-212; Burford- Cooper 1978, 172; H.

Some 10 caves used in the Classical period, both in the city and in rural areas, have springs or at least seasonal pools of drip water within them, and that may have been the key to their use. Water sources were often thought to be under the divine protection of the Nymphs (Camp 1977; Larson 2001, 8), and in that sense they are sacred, yet they need not have been places of cult or ritual. Even water sources that were within a shrine might also have been sources of water used domestically. Thus there is not always a clear distinction between sacred and secular caves; not all sacred places were places of ritual, but rather the functions of some were primarily “domestic”, and non-ritual. The Klepsydra well house or fountain (Travlos 1971, 323-331; Wickens 1986, no. 65), for example, which tapped the water flowing below the limestone cap of the Akropolis at the base of a rock overhang or shelter, was part of the larger Apollo, Nymph and Pan shrine encompassing Akropolis Caves A-D (Wickens 1986, no. 66). Its main function, however, was as a

240

NON-RITUAL USE OF CAVES IN THE CLASSICAL AND LATE ROMAN PERIODS: THE CASE OF ATTIKA Forbes 1995); Bibesi Cave, on the western slopes of Hymettos, like Daveli Cave on Pendili, was also close to marble quarries. Kommeno Lithari Cave 1 (Wickens 1986, no. 9), south of Brauron, Havara (Wickens 1986, no. 17), between Koropi and Vari, and CH 39 in the Charaka Valley in southern Attika (Lohmann 1993) are inconspicuous, closed caves, but they are on lower hill slopes and easily accessible from the plains, pasturage, and settlements. All these caves would provide shelter and space for temporary habitation, as kalyvia for farmers, camps for quarrymen, shelters for shepherds and their animals, or storage for tools, equipment, or produce, perhaps especially cheese in the case of herders. Kouvara, Tigani, and the Wolf Cave, at least, were used by shepherds in recent times.

Attic caves and shelters could have been used as temporary shelters for shepherds or pens for the flocks, yet it is doubtful that a cave would have been used at the same time that active beehives were at or near the cave. A number of ancient authors mention the incompatibility of bees and sheep and goats, both because the bees get caught in the wool of sheep and because goats and sheep would trample the flowers or compete with the bees for the same flowers (Arist. Hist. an. 9.40; Verg. G. 4.104.13; Columella Rust. 9; Plin NH 11.62). This certainly does not mean that a farmer would not have kept both bees and small animals. It is possible that some of the competition, to the extent that there was any, may have been alleviated by the seasonality of the use of the pasture. Bees hibernate, and if the herds used the lower mountain slopes and hills primarily in the winter, either grazing the higher ridges or being taken outside of Attika in the summer, they would have been away for at least part of the season when the bees were most active. Thus some of the hives around caves may not have been active when they were used or visited by the flocks.

Other caves, for example, Kokkinovouni Cave, south of Kalyvia Thorikou, Kakavoula Cave, Megali Cave, both on southern Hymettos, Phyle Cave 1 on Parnes, and Keratea Cave and Daveli Cave (Wickens 1986, nos. 15, 22, 24, 48, 5, 38), are somewhat farther away from deme sites, but all are in areas that could have been used as pasturage, and, with the possible exception of Keratea Cave, they are no more than an hour, two at the most, from the nearest deme. Megali Cave is also conspicuous from and close to a major crossing point of Hymettos, that via the Pirnari ravine. The most plausible function of Megali Cave, at least, is use by shepherds for themselves and their flocks, either as a shelter for the night or from the heat of midday or even perhaps as a seasonal encampment or herding station. As H. Forbes (1995) argues, it was probably necessary to use uncultivated land for pasturage, and probable herding strategies may have incorporated relatively short-range mobility, even on a daily basis. Megali Cave and Phyle Cave 1 were until recently used by shepherds.

Bees are also occasionally associated with caves in Greek literature and myth. In the Cave of the Nymphs (Naiads) on Ithaka, described in the Odyssey (Hom. Od. 13.10313.106), stone kraters and jars (were these natural hollows?) were used by bees to store their honey. Bees led the Boeotians to the spot or chasm where Trophonios disappeared into the earth (Elderkin 1939, 210; Paus. 9.40.2), and bees fed the infant Zeus in the Diktaion Cave (Verg. G 4.149-4.152). Bees are also said to have swarmed around the mouth of the infant Plato when he was at a Nymph shrine on Hymettos (Riginos 1976, 1721; Fowden 1988, 57), probably the Nympholeptou Cave (the Pan Cave) at Vari (Wickens 1986, no. 20), and it may be significant here that beekeeping was one of the prime occupations of the inhabitants of the late 4 th century B.C. Vari farm house near the cave (Jones, Graham and Sackett 1973). Bees are also found on the bezels of two rings (date unspecified) found at Lychnospilia (the Lamp Cave) on Parnes (Wickens 1986, no. 47), perhaps indicating that they may have had some association with Pan and the Nymphs. (for an extreme view concerning the cultic importance of bees, see RichardsMantzoulinou, 1979, who suggests that omphaloi are modeled after beehives.)

One artifact type common to six caves is the terracotta beehive (kalathos); fragments of them have been found in or just outside of Kommeno Lithari Cave 1, Kokkinovouni Cave (a late example, probably postClassical), Philiati, Kakavoula, Vourvatsi and Sesi Cave/Mine (Wickens 1986, nos. 9, 15, 28, 22, 18, and 26). Little other artifactual evidence comes from the last three caves. The kalathos sherd is the only Classical sherd from Vourvatsi Cave. Attika was well known for its honey, especially that produced on Hymettos, and beekeeping was common enough to require laws regulating, for example, the distance a person's hives must be from those of another (Strabo 9.1.23 = 9.399; Paus. 1.32.1; Plin. NH 11.32; Plut. Vit.Sol. 23.6; Pl. leg. 8.843E; see also R.J. Forbes 1966, 90-96; Jones, Graham, and Sackett 1973 on kalathoi and beekeeping). It is not surprising to find beehives in the vicinity of caves, since most of the caves are on or near the hills and mountain slopes that provided the natural pasture for bees, as they did for sheep and goats.

It is not likely that the beehives were set up within the caves themselves, but there are one or two practical reasons why hives may have been set up in the vicinity of caves. Bees prefer protected areas that are free from echoes, and they should be kept cool in summer and warm in the winter. The air issuing from large caves would be cooler than the external air in summer and warmer in winter. More relevant perhaps is that bees require water, preferably very shallow pools or rivulets from which they can easily drink, and the pools of drip water, the springs found within some caves (Arist. Hist. an. 9.40; Varro, Rust. 3.16; Verg. G. 4.18-4.19), or just the wet walls of a cave could have supplied this need. It is also possible that some of the processing of the honey and wax may have

Graham Clark (1942, 214) notes an old saying, unfortunately without giving its source, that “where there is good wool there also will be found sweet honey.” Bees, sheep and goats share the same natural pastureland. Many of the

241

JERE WICKENS been done in convenient caves, and the honey temporarily stored in them.

especially the marginal areas on the hill and mountain slopes, more caves would have been encountered and used for a variety of purposes.

Another opportunistic use of caves is as dumps or places where items could be discarded. This is probably at least partly the function of the Prophetes Elias Varathron (Kotzias 1950; Wickens 1986, no. 25). At this very inconspicuous cave, located on the southern slopes of the Prophetes Elias peak of east central Hymettos, some of the finds were black-glaze sherds of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., fragments of a 6th century Panathenaic amphora, and incised sherds, from this or another amphora, sherds that might be expected in a cult cave. The nature of the cave, however, a vertical cave, 17 + m deep and difficult to enter, makes it unlikely that it was the primary location for the use of at least the amphora and incised sherds. More likely they were discarded, perhaps having been removed from some nearby shrine, for example, the shrine located in the upland basin of Prophetes Elias, above the varathron (Kotzias 1950). This cave would also have served as a good hiding place for people and objects. Another possible dump is the small cave or deep cleft on the southeastern edge of a rubble wall enclosure on an eastern spur (208 m ASL) of Mount Agriliki, at the southern end of the Marathon Plain. A brief excavation of the cleft produced sherds of several periods, including Classical and “Late Antique” sherds (Vanderpool 1966, 321, n. 8; Wickens 1986, no. 41). It seems most likely to have been a storage place or dump, or perhaps a shelter, for the people using the rubble wall enclosure where there were evidently no finds. It might also simply have been the natural collection point for material washed in from the adjacent plateau.

Late Roman After an apparent lull in the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, use of Attic caves increased in the Late Roman period (ca. A.D. 250-700), both in terms of the number of caves used and evidently in the intensity or frequency of their use. Eighteen caves (Wickens 1986, nos. 1, 5, 9, 10, 15, 17, 20, 21, 32, 34, 35, 43, 47, 51, 52, 61, 62 and 65) show positive evidence of use, and another 12 (Wickens 1986, nos. 2, 7, 22, 38, 41, 46, 55, 56, 60, 63, 64 and 66) were probably used. Sacred caves, or those possibly connected with rituals or shrines, still form a sizeable group, ca. one-third of the total. Yet the greatest increase is in the number of rural, non-ritual caves, and the nine to ten certain (Wickens 1986, nos. 5, 9, 10, 15, 17, 21, 32, 34, 35, and probably Wickens 1986, no. 1) and five possible (Wickens 1986, nos. 2, 7, 22, 41, and 56) caves with evidence of such use outnumber the rural shrines by a factor of about two to one. There is much overlap but not an exact correspondence between the Classical and Late Roman non-ritual caves; in each period there are about five caves with no evidence of use in the other period. As was the case with the Classical rural, non-ritual caves, the Late Roman caves are located mainly in central and southern Attika, on both the southern and northern ends of Hymettos, the hills south and east of that mountain, on Keratovouni, and in the coastal hills between Kaki Thalassa and Brauron. Most are in areas of good pasturage yet are readily accessible from lowland areas; only Keratea Cave (Wickens 1986, no. 5) could be termed relatively inaccessible, and even this cave is not far from settled areas in terms of actual distance. Many of the caves are medium to large in size and closed, to a somewhat greater extent than in Classical times. Yet open caves (e. g. Wickens 1986, nos. 2, 7, 10, 21, 32) are also represented. Springs or pools of water are found in one or two of them, Keratea Cave and perhaps Machairi Cave (Wickens 1986, nos. 5, 7). A number of the closed caves, however, can be quite humid, and pools of water might have periodically collected in them.

Nikolaos Kotzias (1950), who excavated the Prophetes Elias Varathron, thought that it was not a natural cave but a mine. This seems unlikely, as the bedrock entrance appears to be natural and speleothems are reported in it, yet the possibility that caves could have been used as mines merits further investigation. Sesi Cave/mine (Wickens 1986, no. 26), at the head of the Tigani Valley of east central Hymettos, just north of Prophetes Elias, has evidently been used in modern times as a mine or quarry, evidenced by modern blasting drill channels visible in its walls. A vein of hematite is reported in the cave (Petrocheilos 1955).

The diagnostic artifacts from these caves consist almost entirely of plain ware sherds dating primarily to the 4 th through 6th centuries, but with some from the 3rd and 7th. Bowls or plates, cooking pots, chafing dishes, and lamps are represented, but even more common are closed shapes such as jugs, jars and amphoras. Almost no ‘fine’ ware was found; there were a few red-ware plate fragments. As in the Classical period, relatively few sherds, usually two to five (but with a range of one to ten), were found at any cave. A few caves have more sherds, up to 30 to 40, which are undiagnostic, but some of these are probably of a late date.

In summary, cave use in Attika during the Classical period is characterized not only by cult caves, notably those of the Nymphs and Pan, but also by a second group of as many as 19 rural caves in the hills and mountain flanks that seem to have been used opportunistically and sporadically, probably for a number of different reasons - temporary campsites or shelters, water sources, storage places, dumps, advantageous places near which to place beehives. They were not important sites, and there is no indication that they were inhabited on more than a temporary basis. They may be indicative of the relatively high population density of Attika in this period and the extensive and fairly intensive land use. As more and more people worked in and traveled over the countryside, and as they exploited various resources over greater expanses of land,

These sherds seem to reflect primarily domestic activities, the preparation of food, eating, and especially storage of liquids and perhaps other items, with the occasion-

242

NON-RITUAL USE OF CAVES IN THE CLASSICAL AND LATE ROMAN PERIODS: THE CASE OF ATTIKA al lamp for light. In the surface material there is no evidence of tool or artifact production or other processing activities. As noted above, however, a kalathos fragment found at Kokkinovouni Cave (Wickens 1986, no. 15) seemed to be post-Classical in date; whether it might be Late Roman is uncertain, but there is no evidence of Hellenistic or Early Roman use of the cave. Kalathoi changed relatively little during the long span of their use, Classical through at least Late Roman times. Certainly honey was still produced in Attika. The bishop of Synesius who visited Athens ca. A.D. 400 stated (letter 136), “Athens ... now depends for renown on its beekeepers.” No features or other class of artifacts certainly attributable to the Late Roman period were noticed at the caves.

keepers, collectors of wild plant products, and farmers would have been the most probable occupants, perhaps using some as campsites or mandria and others for storage of food or produce. It might be argued, as Sinclair Hood (1970) did concerning the many small islands inhabited in this period, that these caves were refuges used during the Herulian or later Slavic and Arabic incursions into Greece and Attika. Many caves, e.g. Wickens 1986, nos. 5, 9, 15, 34 and 35, would certainly have been suitable for such a purpose, yet the chronology of the pottery from the caves does not support such use. Most of it is later than the Herulian invasion (A.D. 267); one exception is an unknown cave in the Porto Raphti-Brauron area (Wickens 1986, no. 8), evidently used to secrete a hoard of coins, probably at the time of the Herulian invasion in A.D. 267. The Late Roman pottery from the caves is also earlier than the Slavic and Arabic invasions of the late 6th and following centuries. This dating discrepancy is also the case with the island settlements (Gregory 1986, 1994). Nor is the pottery from the caves similar in type to the later refuge pottery that is found elsewhere (T.E. Gregory, pers. comm. 1988). Furthermore, more portable valuables might have been expected at refuges, even if most of them had been later removed at the end of the period of danger. Nor is it likely that they were all refuges from the threat of Alaric in A.D. 395. He caused damage in Eleusis and perhaps other areas of the countryside, but he came to terms with the people of Athens without destroying the city; presumably he did not proceed farther south into Attika and the vicinity of these Late Roman caves. It must also be remembered that during this same period people, and not just shepherds, were freely and frequently visiting the sacred caves, at least those at Vari and on Parnes; Nikagoras, the son or grandson of an Eleusenian dadouchos Nikagoras, visited the Parnes Nymph Cave numerous times (Fowden 1988, 57).

Since only one of these caves has been excavated, no other archaeological material, such as faunal or botanical remains or features such as hearths, is available. That exception, Kitsos Cave (Wickens 1986, no. 1), produced only one 5th century lamp fragment, but no plain sherds similar to those at other Late Roman sites. Thus it is uncertain whether the evidently very minor Later Roman use of Kitsos Cave was comparable to the use of the other caves that have more evidence of use, either in intensity or nature. Where it could be estimated, however, the depth of deposit at most of the caves did not seem substantial, and judging from the nature of many of the caves and the available artifacts, it seems most plausible that the caves served as mandria, temporary campsites, or storage places either for the provisions of people working on the hills and mountain slopes or for some of the produce (for example, honey or cheese) collected or processed in the hills. If they were used as habitation sites, they were probably occupied by only a few people and only for as long as the nature of their activity required them to stay in the hills and mountain slopes rather than to return to their primary residences, assuming that they were used by the inhabitants of the Attic villages and farms.

Late Roman Attic cave use falls within a period when an increased number of open, rural sites have been found by most archaeological surveys conducted in Greece; it does not seem to have been a time of danger and decline. Athens itself suffered at the hands of the Heruli and perhaps shrank somewhat afterwards, but it saw renewed building and life into the 7th century (Thompson 1959). Whatever disruptions may have occurred in Athens and Eleusis may have also fostered growth in the countryside and caused some shift in population out of the cities to the rural areas. Unfortunately, both the literary and historical testimonia do not speak clearly to the situation, and for Attika the archaeological evidence for this period, especially for the countryside, is incomplete. In other regions, including Boiotia and Euboia, the rise in the number of Late Roman open sites, small sites, probably farms and more temporarily inhabited agricultural buildings, as well as larger villas, indicates an extensive use of the countryside. Rather than the more intensive use, by freeholders mainly to supply their own needs, as seen in the Classical period, this later use is generally seen as being spurred by the need to supply produce, mainly wine and oil, to Constantinople. As noted above, Lohman (1993, 260-261)

There is nothing to indicate that it was not the local Attic people who were using the caves. Lohmann (1993, 260261), however, suggests that this may not have been the case. In the Charaka Valley in southern Attika, he found many open mandria sites, but few other habitation sites. He suggests that the Late Roman shepherds using these mandria (and the Attic caves) were non-local, nomadic pastoralists and that herders and herding were detached from the local farmers. It seems possible, however, that the Charaka mandria were used by herders coming from farms and villages in other areas of Attika. Except in the Charaka Valley in far southern Attika (Lohmann 1993), there have been no intensive archaeological surveys in Attika. Yet from the information that has been collected, it seems that in the Late Roman and Classical periods there were relatively many open habitation sites, both villages and farms, within easy reach of the caves (see individual catalogue entries in Wickens 1986). It is, of course, by no means certain that all these caves were used in a similar fashion. Shepherds, bee-

243

JERE WICKENS found evidence of significant pastoralism in southern Atttika, and pastoralism is also believed to have been practiced in other regions during the period, again perhaps for the wider market. The Attic caves may well have been associated with that activity as at least one of their uses. Clearly the countryside was more actively occupied than in the late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods (see e.g., Alcock 1993, 33-63; Bintliff 1997; Shipley 2002, 312-337; Kosso 2003; Foxhall 2004, 266 for a review of the surveys and site use and H. Forbes 1995 for shortrange mobile herding strategies.)

used only sporadically and opportunistically would be the first to fall out of use when the rural areas were less extensively traveled and exploited. Tracking such minor use is thus well worthwhile. Conclusions Whether the rural non-ritual caves were used for the same purposes in the Classical and Late Roman periods remains uncertain on the present evidence. The suite of Late Roman caves and the artifacts found within them seems to form a somewhat more unified and homogeneous group. Thus the Late Roman use may have been connected to a specific strategy of herding or other hill and mountain activity. The relative number of such caves used in the two periods may also be somewhat skewed by the different lengths of the periods, barely 200 years for the Classical and ca. 400 for Late Roman. Thus the Classical caves may be proportionately more numerous. The preservation of the Late Roman material, three-quarters of a millennium younger than the Classical, should also be better, and the more ephemeral and seemingly less homogeneous nature of the Classical material may thus not be real. It seems plausible that, since the caves are in similar locations, giving access to the same resources, they were used in both periods, at least in part, by people carrying out similar activities, herding, bee-keeping, agricultural work, collecting wild plant products, quarrying, whether or not such people were utilizing the caves in exactly identical ways.

The settlement at Porto Raphti and those on the offshore islands there and elsewhere from the 4th century on have been interpreted to indicate a high level of trade and a relatively large population with perhaps a coastal concentration (Gregory 1986, 1994). Farms and inland villages, however, are certainly known in Attika, often located relatively close to the caves, as noted above; likewise, a number of the caves are near the Brauron-Porto Raphti coast. The relative lack of Hellenistic or Early Roman cave use is probably a reflection and indicator of a relatively low density of the rural population and less extensive or less intensive land use, and the greater incidence of cave use in the Classical period indicates the opposite trends. Similarly, in the Late Roman period it may well have been the more extensive land use and travel that led to, and is indicated by, the relatively high incidence of cave use then. Caves, because they are often fringe sites in fringe areas, may be rather good indicators of fluctuations, especially minor ones, in land use. Caves that are

244

NON-RITUAL USE OF CAVES IN THE CLASSICAL AND LATE ROMAN PERIODS: THE CASE OF ATTIKA Jones, J.E., A.J. Graham and L.H. Sackett 1973. “An Attic Country House below the Cave of Pan at Vari,” BSA 68, pp. 355-452.

Bibliography Alcock, S.E. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge.

Karali, L., and F. Mavridis 2005. “Excavations at Lion's Cave, Hymettos, Athens, Greece,” Bulletin of the Aegean Society of Japan 19, pp. 1-10.

———. 1994. “Minding the Gap in Hellenistic and Roman Greece,” in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, S.E. Alcock and R. Osborne, eds., Oxford, pp. 247-261.

Karali, L., F. Mavridis and L. Kormazopoulou 2005. “Cultural Landscapes during the Late and Final Neolithic of the Aegean. A Case Study from Leontari Cave, Mt Hymettos, Athens, Greece,” Antiquity79(2005) http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/projindex.html (15 March 2011).

Bintliff, J. 1997, “Regional Survey, Demography, and the Rise of Complex Societies in the Ancient Aegean: Core-Periphery, Neo-Malthusian, and Other Interpretive Models,” JFA 24, pp. 1-38. Borgeaud, P. 1988. The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece (translated by K. Atlass and J. Redfield), Chicago and London.

———. 2006. “Σπήλαιο Λεονταρίου Υμηττού Αττικής: Ένα Πετρώδες και Ορεινό Περιβάλλον. Προκαταρκτικά Στοιχεία για την Έρευνα των Ετών 2003-2005,” AAA 39, pp. 31-43.

Burford-Cooper, A. 1978. “The Family Farm in Classical Greece,” CJ 73, pp. 162-175.

Kosso, C. 2003. The Archaeology of Public Policy in Late Roman Greece, Oxford.

Camp, J.McK., II. 1977. The Water Supply of Ancient Athens from 3000-86 B.C., Ph.D. diss., Princeton University.

Kotzias N.X. 1950. “Ἀνασκαφαί εν Προφήτη Ηλία Υμηττού,” Prakt, pp. 144-172.

Clark, G. 1942. “Beekeeping in Antiquity,” Antiquity 16, pp. 208-215.

Küpper, M. 1990. “Frühattische ‘Stempelidole’ von Kiapha Thiti”, in Kiapha Thiti - Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung III 2 (Eisenzeit), MarbWPr [1989], pp. 1729.

Elderkin, G.W. 1939. “The Bee of Artemis,” AJP 60, pp. 203-213.

Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore, Oxford.

Forbes, H. 1995. “The Identification of Pastoralist Sites within the Context of Estate-based Agriculture in Ancient Greece: Beyond the ‘Transhumance versus Agropastoralism’ Debate,” BSA 90, pp. 325-338.

Lewis, D.M. 1973. “The Athenian Rationes Centesimarum”, in Problemes de la terre en Grece ancienne, M.I. Finley, ed., Mouton, Paris and Hague, pp. 181- 212.

Forbes, R.J. 1966. Studies in Ancient Technology 5, (2nd ed.), Leiden.

Lohmann, H. 1993. Atene: Forschungen zu Siedlungsund Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen Attika, Cologne, Weimar and Wien.

Foxhall, L. 2004. “Small, Rural Farmsteads Sites in Ancient Greece: A Material Cultural Analysis,” in Chora und Polis, F. Kolb, ed., (Schriften des Historischen Kolloge, Kolloquien 54), Munich, pp. 249270.

Petrocheilos, J. 1955. “Συμβολή εις την Σπουδήν των Υποδιαιρέσεων των Τεταρτογενών Χρόνων εις την Αττικήν,” Δελτίο της Ελληνικής Σπηλαιολογικής Εταιρείας 3(1-2), pp. 3-60.

Fowden, G. 1988. “City and Mountain in Late Roman Attika,” JHS 108, pp. 48-59.

Richards-Mantzoulinou, E. 1979. “Melissa Potnia,” AJA 12, pp. 72-92.

Gregory, T.E. 1986. “A Desert Island Survey in the Gulf of Corinth,” Archaeology 39 (3), pp. 16-21.

Riginos, A.S. 1976. Platonica. The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato, Leiden.

———. 1994. “Archaeology and Theoretical Considerations on the Transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages in the Aegean Area,” in Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area, P.N. Kardulias ed., Lanham, New York and London, pp. 136-159.

Shipley, G. 2002, “The Survey area in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” in Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey (Volume I): Methodology and Interpretations, W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G Shipley, eds., London, pp. 257-337.

Hood, M.S.F. 1970. “Isles of Refuge in the Early Byzantine Period,” BSA 65, pp. 37-45.

Thompson, H.A. 1959. “Athenian Twilight: A.D. 267600,” JRS 49, pp. 61-72.

245

JERE WICKENS Welter, G. 1938. “Das choregische Denkmal des Thrasyllos,” AA 53, pp. 33-68.

Townsend, R.F. 1982. Aspects of Athenian Architectural Activity in the Second Half of the Fourth Century B.C., Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Wickens, J.M. 1986. The Archaeology and History of Cave Use in Attika, Greece from Prehistoric through Late Roman Times, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University.

Travlos, J.N. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, New York.

Wilson, P. 2000. The Athenian Institution of the “Khoregia”: The Chorus, the City, and the Stage, Cambridge

Vanderpool, E. 1966. “The Deme of Marathon and the Herakleion,” AJA 70, pp. 319-323.

Zuntz, G. 1971. Persephone: Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia, Oxford.

246

PART V: Case Studies In Cave Archaeology

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. cave, there is evidence for it from at least the Middle Neolithic (radiocarbon dates indicate the presence of even earlier Neolithic phases; however, material to stylistically support this is absent for the moment) down to the Early Bronze Age. The most important evidence comes from repeated strata that have been dated to the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene, currently unique in Attika. Study of animal bones and especially seeds indicate the importance of this site for understanding the transition to the Neolithic period in the Aegean. In this respect, the Schisto Cave can be paralleled to the Francthi and Theopetra Caves.

16 Anonymous Cave Of Schisto At Keratsini, Attika: A Preliminary Report On A Diachronic Cave Occupation From The Pleistocene/Holocene Transition To The Byzantine Times Fanis Mavridis, Lina Kormazopoulou, Antigone Papadea, Orestis Apostolikas, Daishuke Yamaguchi, Zarko Tankosic, Georgia Kotzamani, Katerina Trantalidou, Panagiotis Karkanas, Yannis Maniatis, Katerina Papagianni,and Dimitris Lambropoulos.

The Anonymous Schisto Cave at Keratsini became known to the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece after an illicit excavation was reported by a citizen. As a consequence, in 2000 a salvage excavation was conducted by Dimitris Hatzilazarou and Alexandra Zampiti (Zampiti this volume; Spathi and Hatzilazarou 2008) at the location of the illicit digging. This area, approached through a narrow corridor, can be described as an underground cavity formed after the collapse of very large rocks. Most of the material from this area belongs to the period of the Classical-Roman use of the cave (Zampiti this volume; Spathi and Hatzilazarou 2008). Numerous pottery sherds, clay figurines, a few minor objects of glass, faience, clay, and metal and a great number of animal bones were found then. Due to the morphology of the area and the types of finds this spot was interpreted as an apothetis (votive deposit, see Zampiti this volume). The quality and quantity of the finds suggest the existence of an important shrine in this part of Attika. A small number of prehistoric sherds were also recovered that indicate that the cave was first used during the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age phases (Mavridis 2006). As a result, the research of the main chamber of the cave began in 2006 and it is still ongoing. Its aim is to systematically investigate the stratigraphic sequence and interpret the prehistoric use of the cave.

Introduction* Fanis Mavridis and Lina Kormazopoulou The excavation of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini is an ongoing research project of the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece. An international team of scholars is working in the field and the laboratory in order to extract all available information from a variety of remains. The cave was an important sanctuary during the Classical period, judging by the quality of the finds from that period (pottery, figurines, etc.,); there are traces of the cave’s use for this purpose that can be dated from the Late Geometric to the Post-Roman times. Regarding the prehistoric use of the

                                                             *

 All results are preliminary since field research and study of finds are not completed. The different status of the results presented here is due to the progress that each individual scholar has accomplished in relation to the study of each category of finds. New excavations at the cave started at 2006 and are still ongoing. Fanis Mavridis and Lina Kormazopoulou would like to express their gratitude to the Kostopoulos Foundation and the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, New York, whose financial support has made this research possible. Also, to the former director of our Ephoreia, Dr. N. Kyparissi-Apostolika for her overall support and for the permission to process some of the flotation samples at Theopetra. Yannis Maniatis like to thank Dr. Bernd Kromer of Heidelberg Academy of Science for continuous help and support with technical matters regarding the laboratory procedures and for the δ13C measurements, for which we are also indebted to the Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg. The osteological material collected at the Anonymous Cave of Schisto, Municipality of Keratsini, during the 2006 and 2007 field campaigns, has been recorded by Konstantinos Trimmis (student at the University of Thessaloniki), Vasiliki Argiti (archaeologist, University of Athens), Maria Giannoukou (archaeologist, University of Crete), Giorgos Kazantzis (archaeologist, University of Ioannina) and Johan van Gent (Erasmus Program, Groningen-Athens Universities) at the facilities of the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, as part of their training program in archaeozoology, under Katerina Trantalidou’s supervision, who also bears the whole responsibility for any mistakes in the identification, the methods used, and the interpretation of the material. Topographical work was carried out by Thodoris Hatzitheodorou. Lakis Kontrolozos and Haris Bougadis helped during excavation. Graduate and postgraduate students of the University of Athens who have participated in the project are: Thomas Tsironis, Argyro Malliarou, Vaso Bethani, Marianna Philippoglou, Vasiliki Stagia. We also thank the conservators of the Ephoreia for Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece for their work. The paper is an updated version of that originally presented at the Irish Institute at Athens/Ephoreia for Caves Colloquium: ‘Recent Research in Greek Caves’, Athens, 24 May 2008. 

The cave (Fig. 16.1) lies inside the industrial park of the Schisto area (259 m above sea level), with a view over a wide area of surrounding landscape and the sea (for more information concerning the environment, see Trantalidou below). In the east, it has access to the unforested Aigaleo Mountain, while exactly opposite the mouth of the cave lies the top of the “Skaramanga Mountain” and the Gulf of Eleusis. The area outside the cave is rocky with no visible sediments. The ancient entrance has collapsed and the existing mouth of the cave is wide and arched. A sloping descent leads towards the inner main chamber, (ca. 70 x 15 m). Close to the entrance the foundation of a rectangular building is still visible and further away there are a few carved blocks of stone. Terraces and retaining walls enable descent to the main chamber, and some stairs have been carved into the bedrock of the main access area. Natural cavities (niches) can

248

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

be seen along the walls. Old roof collapse episodes have filled the floor of the main chamber with larger rocks and smaller stones. The most characteristic is a massive boulder in the back end of the cave.

ent during the 2008 excavation season, when habitation layers were found further below that contained traces of ash/burning with no evidence of severe disturbances. In 2007 a new trench (Trench 3), measuring 2 x 2 m, was opened next to Trench 1. As in the case of the previous trench, the aim was to investigate in detail the stratigraphic sequence and the character of finds. The picture obtained was similar to that described above (Trench 1). After a thick disturbed layer, again many bones and flint tools were found but no pottery at all.

Excavation Fanis Mavridis, Lina Kormazopoulou, Daisuke Yamaguchi and Dimitris Lambropoulos The presence of numerous large and smaller rocks and the existence of thick stalagmitic crusts on the floor of the cave made the choice of the area for trial excavation very difficult, especially in the main chamber. The goal of the first short field season was to determine the character of the sediments, to collect stratigraphic data, and to plan the following excavation seasons. Also, an excavation grid was put in place (Fig. 16.2).

Trench 2 was also opened during the first field season in a natural cavity, along the opposite wall of the cave and closer to the entrance, with the goal of locating the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age phases in more secure contexts. As it happened with Trench 1, the excavation did not uncover any in situ layers of the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. The layers detected so far indicate that they were deposited through the action of water. The south-east corner of the trench produced repeated layers of fire and ash. Among the finds, few characteristic Neolithic sherds can be distinguished, although very fragmentary. Also a series of typical obsidian tools in the form of blades as well as some waste products come from the same deposit. From the deepest excavated layers of Trench 2 come a few flint tools, the character of which seems to be close to the examples from the deepest layers of Trench 1 and Trench 3.

The initial test trench, Trench 1, measuring 2 x 3 m, lies along the north wall of the cave (Fig. 16.3). Digging showed a disturbed surface layer, up to 80 cm thick, containing mainly boulders of different size that have sealed all other deposits below. Traces of burning and ash were also detected. This layer produced evidence of Prehistoric, Classical, and more recent use of the cave. In fact, very few potsherds and other finds were located in the layer. Few concentrations of sherds that were detected, dated to the Neolithic and, mainly, to the Early Bronze Age, represented the most important finds. Further excavation of Trench 1, which reached the depth of about 2 m, brought to light a series of layers very different from the ones on the top: successive layers consisting mainly of gravel, which alternated with dark colored sediments. In all known cases thus far, these dark colored layers were found on top of the ones with gravel. It was also observed that most of the finds came from the group of layers containing gravel. The finds consisted of stone tools, animal bones, and a few seashells and land snails (Fig. 16.4). As it was initially pointed out by the geologist of the excavation, Dr. Panagiotis Karkanas (see below), the action of water was the main cause for the formation of these layers. Thin section analysis showed the different depositional history of the cave’s layers: the black colored layers were mainly made of guano with traces of burning inside, whereas the gravel layers had been washed in by the action of water. It became obvious that these repeated and more or less disturbed layers constitute different phases of occupation, as it was also suggested by radiocarbon dating (see Karkanas below). At first, the picture obtained during the excavation was that the dark colored layers, which contained lighter material, were found on top of the heavier ones consisting mainly of gravel and archaeological finds. However, it seems at the moment that one layer containing carbon, ash, and other related materials is connected to those below with the heavier materials and finds. The different depositional history and the complex stratigraphic record of the archaeological layers in the Keratsini Cave became appar-

So far the excavations have proved that the action of water caused damage to the prehistoric deposits in the cave, leaving none in situ that could be securely ascribed to the Neolithic or later periods. Earlier layers seem to have been formed by a variety of processes and it seems that more or less in situ deposits alternate with others that were washed in. The detailed typological and technological analysis of lithic assemblages together with radiocarbon dating of all layers will shed light on the dating of the succeeding, Pre-Neolithic, layers (see Mavridis et al. 2012). Radiocarbon Dating Methods And Results Yannis Maniatis The detection of Pre-Neolithic deposits in Attika is very important and this is the first time that a site that contains them is being systematically explored. Problems in the nature and formation of the cave’s stratigraphic sequence have been described above. So far, four absolute dates are available from the cave. The first one comes from the deepest exposed layer of the 2006 excavation (Trench 1), while the other ones correspond to the cave’s stratigraphy, despite the formation processes recorded. The two dates that correspond to the Early Neolithic phases come from the uppermost layers. The dates available so far are presented in Table 1.

249

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. samples was quite small, about and below 2 g, which produced approximately 0.5 g of carbon. For this reason, the samples were measured for a prolonged period of time in the gas proportional counters, rising to about one month. In any case, the small amount of samples and their old ages resulted in higher than usual errors in their measured radiocarbon age.

Samples And Techniques

  Four charcoal samples from different layers and locations in the cave were submitted for radiocarbon dating at the Laboratory of Archaeometry, N.C.S.R. “Demokritos”, Greece. The laboratory uses the gas (CO2) counting technique in proportional counters. All samples were rather small in quantity, but one was much smaller than the capabilities of the Gas Counting technique and thus it was sent for AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry) to the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit.

The calibration of the B.P. ages was performed using the Radiocarbon Calibration Program Rev. 5.0 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993) with the latest dataset (Reimer et al. 2004). Both uncertainty ranges of the calibrated dates, corresponding to 1 and 2 standard deviations (probability 68.3 and 95.4% respectively) are given in Table 1.

All samples were chemically pre-treated to remove any carbon compounds of non archaeological origin (Olsson 1979; Mook and Streurman 1983) by using the standard Acid-Base-Acid treatment. In particular, after a mechanical cleaning, where all obvious non charcoal particles were removed from the sample, and a light grinding of the charcoal to smaller particles, the samples were put into a 4% solution of HCl acid at 80ºC and stirred well for at least 30 minutes or as long as it was necessary to dilute any present carbonates from the soil. Then the samples were transferred to 4% NaOH solution, stirred well and left overnight at room temperature. Following that, the samples were placed again into an acid solution of 4% HCl at 80ºC and stirred for more than an hour. They were then neutralized with deionised water and dried in a dryer oven at 100°C.

The calibrated results of all samples are plotted in the bar diagram of Fig. 16.5 using the 2σ values. The samples are plotted according to radiocarbon age, from older to younger. It appears that the ages span a period from 10,000 to 5,700 B.C., using the extreme values of the calibrated ages indicating a 5,000 year long period of occupation. No sample age shows any overlap with another, a fact that does not allow us to identify a period of most intensive use of the cave. However, this may be due to the selection of the samples. Dates indicate a chronological range that exists between the deepest and the uppermost excavated layers. Currently available dates indicate the presence of phases belonging to the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene transition. Considering the nature and formation of these layers, we need to be cautious and wait for more samples to be processed.

The three somewhat larger dry samples were then combusted using the de Vries type continuous combustion system (de Vries and Barendsen 1953; Münnich 1957; Nydal 1983) and converted to CO2. The gas sample was then purified in several stages by passing it through chemicals and precipitating it into calcium carbonate. Finally it was converted again into CO2 and passed through a column filled with activated charcoal kept at 0oC (Kromer and Munnich 1992) in order to remove radon and any other minor impurities. A very small portion of the pure gas sample is taken into a special ampoule and sent for 13C measurement.

The Depositional Sequence Panagiotis Karkanas Methodology Micromorphology is the study of undisturbed sediments and soils in thin sections (Courty, Goldberg and Macphail 1989). As it studies intact deposits, the original integrity of the materials is conserved, thus allowing for the observation of depositional and post-depositional features of natural or human origins.

The Gas Counting Carbon-14 measuring system at the laboratory of Archaeometry, NCSR “Demokritos” consists of a series of copper cylindrical gas proportional counters, with capacities of 4 and 3 liters. The counters are surrounded by continuous flow (Ar + 10% CH4) guard counters, which monitor all incoming environmental radiation and separate it electronically from the actual sample counts by an anti coincidence system. The samples are alternated every few days between the different counters and measured repeatedly. In this way the accuracy and reliability of the results is ensured.   Radiocarbon Dating: Results And Discussion

In the the Anonymous Cave of Schisto the field description of the sediments was followed by the sampling of two intact blocks of sediment. The blocks were cut out with a sharp tool after being jacketed on the outside with plaster of Paris. The samples were oven dried for several days at 60° C and then impregnated with polyester resin diluted with styrene. The hardened blocks were then cut into cm-thick slabs and were processed into 50 x 75 mm petrographic thin sections by Quality Thin Sections (Tucson, AZ). In total five thin sections from Schisto were observed in plane-polarized and cross-polarized light (PPL and XPL, respectively) at magnifications ranging from 15x to 400x. (descriptive terminology of thin sec-

  The dating results for the four samples are shown on Table 16.1. As mentioned above the initial amount of the

250

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

tions follows that of Bullock et al. 1985, modified by Stoops 2003; Courty, Goldberg and Macphail 1989).

with charred material and charcoal. Locally some of the fine material looks finely bedded. Gypsum nodules are frequent. The lower coarse layer studied consists of heavily altered limestone fragments (being replaced by phosphates) with big nodules of gypsum and some interstitial floating material of rounded brown soil aggregates and some heavily weathered bones. The uppermost coarse layer studied is a gravel horizon with almost clast supported angular pieces of limestone, most of which have rims of apatite alteration. There are also chert and calcite quartzite fragments. The interstitial material consists of unsorted brownish soil aggregates together with some fine dissolving bone and very few pieces of rounded charcoal.

Field Description (Fig. 16.6)

  The sediments of the excavated trench can be clearly divided into two major units. The upper one consists of mostly clast supported angular cobble and boulder limestone. The lower one consists of more than three couplets of coarse and fine grained layers. The coarse layers are composed of matrix to clast supported fine gravel. Inverse grading of the coarse components was observed in one of the coarse layers. The contacts with the fine grained layers are mostly sharp, but deformation structures were also observed. The deformation structures are in the form of rounded protrusions of the underlying layer with sizes of a few centimeters. Fine layers consist of dark brown clayey silt. The lower most fine grained layer shows a fine laminated structure.

The Depositional Sequence: Discussion And Interpretation

  In summary, the fine grained guano rich layers are intact to moderately reworked deposits created by shifting water. The abundance of burnt features and their relation to the guano substrate imply that burning activities were taking place on the guano rich surface of the cave. The archaeological material might be slightly reworked and redistributed laterally on the existing depositional surfaces, but the general integrity of each layer is not disputed.

Micromorphological Description

  The lower part of the laminated layer at the base of the sequence consists of massive to crudely bedded fluffy, very porous material consisting mainly of finely convoluted fibrous phosphate (most likely apatite) attributed to bird guano (Wattez, Courty and Macphail 1990). There are also intercalated laminae of burnt guano remains with some relatively big wood charcoal fragments. Very few fine dissolved rounded and etched bone fragments are observed. Several severely digested bone remnants and bone like features are inside the convolute fibrous apatite aggregates. There are also a few dispersed clusters of whitish opaque and some crystalline nodules of microcrystalline gypsum. A fine lamina of crudely sorted quartz grains was identified. The crude bedding and the clastic laminae can be interpreted as guano, which was redistributed slightly by low energy water action. The upper part of the laminated layer is more finely bedded. In addition, the apatite is more structureless but with signs of in situ precipitation (shrinkage features), although fibrous convolute apatite aggregates are still visible in places. There are also more distinct laminae of wood charcoal and a lot of microcrystalline gypsum nodules that look like being precipitated into the vughs of the surrounding material. In conclusion, this sediment looks definitely water lain, although its content is redistributed from the immediate surrounding area. The uppermost part of the laminated layer close to the base of the overlying coarse layer contains a lot of aggregated sediment, some of which looks rounded. There are a lot of red soil aggregates and quartz grains and some rounded etched fine bones. This clastic sediment is also formed by low energy water action.

Nevertheless, the fine grained layers alternate with more coarse grained gravelly layers that are the result of higher energy sheet wash or debris flow activity. The deformation structures observed at the contact of a couplet are the result of unequal loading and liquefaction due to which the muddy layer below moved up in the form of tongues into the overlying coarser layer. The inverse grading observed in one of the coarse layers should be attributed to debris flows. Debris flows were formed when colluvium that had accumulated in the entrance of the cave was destabilized by water saturation and failed under the force of gravity. It was transformed into a high viscosity flow that fanned down into the main chamber. It is conceivable that archaeological findings in the coarse layers are more reworked and transported from a distance to the surface of the cave. However, since each coarse depositional increment is covered by a new layer of guano that has sharp non erosional contacts with the overlying next couplet, it is suggested that disturbance and reworking is restricted. However, since some of the clastic material that entered the cave from the outside and through the sloping entrance area was deposited on the main chamber, some older material might have been incorporated inside it. The presence of guano has led to considerable chemical alteration of the deposits. Limestone fragments are altered and eventually pulverized. Bones are marginally affected, although the degree of their alteration is directly related to the phosphate minerals present (Karkanas et al. 2000). Although special mineralogical analysis of the phosphates was not undertaken, the preservation of limestone in most places might imply that the phosphate is

Above the laminated layer, the sediments of the fine and coarse couplets are a mixture of what is already described. That is, of both intact layers of convolute fibrous apatite guano features and reworked layers containing aggregated moderately sorted material of apatite mixed

251

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. apatite. In that case it is assumed that bones are still stable or marginally affected (Karkanas et al. 2000). Nevertheless, there are fine grained layers that are totally decalcified and presence of probably phosphate minerals may suggest a higher degree of alteration. In that case bone apatite should not be stable. Gypsum formation is also a byproduct of guano alteration (Shachack-Gross et al. 2004). It is of importance to note that fine bones with indications of digestion (etched and dissolving) were frequently encountered. They are associated with the bird guano.

the cores seem to be exhausted and had probably been rejected. Plaques made mainly of radiolarite and flint pebbles were knapped, while one was made of quartz. Two small flake cores were recorded. The first has two technological axes perpendicular to each other, while the second has only one. The reduction of cores took place with no prior platform preparation. Another radiolarite core is characteristic for exhibiting traces of three different flaking methods that were used to produce the respective final products: flakes, small flakes, and blades (Figs. 16.7, 16.8). Flaking in this case also took place with no platform preparation. All three cores mentioned above retain a substantial proportion of cortex on their surface.

The Lithic Assemblage Antigoni Papadea and Orestis Apostolikas

The most common group is represented by the unretouched artifacts which consist of 38 flakes, 15 blades, and 3 small flakes. In general, flakes are more common than blades, while tools (47 pieces) follow (Tables 16.57).

A total of 316 stone artifacts were recovered in the cave during the 2006-2007 excavation periods. Of them, 128 artifacts came from Trench 1AB (which was formed after the unification of test Trench 1A and Trench 1B), eight were recovered from square 3A1 and 74 from square 3A2. Trench 2 produced a total of 41 stone artifacts (Tables 16.2, 16.3).

Little information can be added about the reduction methods of raw materials. The exterior surface of the flakes exhibits intersected unipolar, bipolar, and centripetal negative scars. The absence of platform preparation on cores is confirmed by the types of butts on the flakes (plain and cortical). However, the presence of more complex facetted butts should not be ruled out. Blades were extracted mainly from unipolar or bipolar cores without any platform preparation (plain butts). Small flakes were extracted from unipolar cores also with no platform preparation. A blade, a backed flake, and a flake from the rejuvenation of the core’s platform are the only technical pieces of the assemblage.

Since the artifacts (128 pieces) from trenches 1A, 1B, and 1AB are much greater in number compared to other trenches (Table 16.4), and due to the fact that excavation reached its maximum depth at Trench 1AB, we decided to analyze the data from this group of lithics in this presentation. It is needless to say, however, that these are only preliminary results since the excavations are in progress and the results from water floating are still to come out. For this reason only the general characteristics of the assemblages will be documented. The stratigraphic sequence of the trench indicates that the vast majority of the artifacts were recovered inside the disturbed surface layers and among the gravel rich secondary depositional sequences that were formed by intense water activity inside the cave.

Regarding tools (Tables 16.8-10), the most common type are the retouched flakes, followed by the notches, the scrapers, the retouched blades, and the backed blades, while characteristic are the points on double backed bladelettes (Fig. 16.9) Composite tools are represented by the following types: 1. Retouched notch and retouched flake 2. Clactonian notch and retouched flake 3. Retouched notch and denticulate on small flake 4. Borers on backed blade 5. Scraper and denticulate on exhausted core

The density of lithic artifacts per layer is quite small, while a substantial proportion of them appear to be broken, most probably due to post-depositional movement. Traces of burns and patina have also been recorded, but on a much smaller number of artifacts. There is no substantial differentiation towards their technological and morphological aspects.

The absence of microlithic tools and the microburin technique should not be taken for granted since water floating results are still unavailable.

The raw materials that were mainly used for the production of stone artifacts were brown, grayish, and black flint, while radiolarite was present in the forms of cores, flakes, blades, and tools. Quartz was not extensively used and counts a total of eight samples from layers 10, 11, and 13 (for the presence of obsidian artifacts coming from these layers see Laskaris et al. 2011, for a discussion on the stratigraphy of the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene deposits of the cave, see Mavridis et al. 2012).

Knapping was probably not systematically undertaken, as suggested by the limited number of stone artifacts and the apparent absence of basic stages of the operational sequence, such as decortification and raw material preparation. Based on radiocarbon dating, the assemblages belong to the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene, at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic and the beginning of the Mesolithic periods.

The small number of cores does not allow the remodeling of reduction methods used at core shaping, while two of

252

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

A sample of 4284 specimens has been examined. Following the stratigraphic sequence the faunal material has been divided into two assemblages (Table 11): 1. The Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene (most probably Early Holocene according to the evidence from the animal bones) which, based on the bulk of sedimentation at the Schisto Cave, implies that it lasted one or two thousand years, documented here with three different events [on the present interglacial and the ice core chronology for the Greenland “Early Holocene (7.9–11.7 ka before Present)” see Rasmussen et al. 2007]. A Late Glacial occupation episode cannot be excluded [see Mavridis et al. 2012 for an absolute date (14,539±1280BP, based on the SIMS-SS method) determined from an obsidian artifact found at trench 1, layer 4, just below the concentration of the charcoal which yield 9,978 ± 100 ΒΡ]. 2. The Middle-Late Holocene section, documented on the basis of the ceramic sherds, with several and frequent hiatuses (Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2009; Mavridis and Tankosic this article; Kormazopoulou this article; Zampiti in this volume).

The two points on double backed bladelettes present a sharp point and are familiar from other Upper Palaeolithic sites in Greece, such as the Franchthi Cave (Elefanti 2003, 48; Perlès 1987) and the Boila Rockshelter (Kotjabopoulou, Panagopoulou and Adam 1997; 1999). The emphasis on the production of flakes and their secondary processing is also characteristic of other sites in Greece such as the Franchti Cave (Perlès 2003, 82), Kleisoura Cave 1 (Koumouzelis, Kozlowski and Ginter 2003), the Theopetra Cave in Thessaly (Adam 2006) and Cave of Cyclops in Gioura (Sampson, Kozlowski and Kaczanowska 2003), as well as the open-air site of Sidari on Corfu (Sordinas 1970; 2003). The similarities among these sites are emphasized by the presence of common non microlithic tool types such as end scrapers and notches. However, we should have in mind that the lithic assemblages from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto came from layers affected by post-depositional processes, and since the preliminary results exhibit no signs of clear differentiation in lithic technology, one must be very cautious in defining the assemblages as Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic. Furthermore, since water floating is still in progress we are not in position to create an integrated image of the presence or absence of microlithic tools in the cave.

The Middle - Late Holocene Deposits (Table 16.11) The Chronological Frame We examined the upper layers together, combining the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and later periods because there was no clearly observable succession of layers. According to the stratigraphy and to the presence/absence of the ceramic evidence, the layers 1 to 3 in trenches 1 (Figs. 3, 4) and 2 are assigned to the Middle-Late Holocene period. Stratum 5 provided the bulk of this Middle-Late Holocene achaeozoological material. In trench 3, all excavated layers belong to the Middle-Late Holocene period, except for the lowest strata. Only a part of those data is presented in Table 11. Additionally, several hundreds of animal bones from trench 3 have been recorded but are not included in the statistics.

Finally, special reference must be made to a hooked type bone object (Fig. 16.10). It can be paralleled to the numerous fish hooks known from the Cyclops Cave on Gioura (Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, table 10.1). However, a single fragmented piece from a mountainous cave site with so far limited fish remains cannot present the reliable evidence needed in order to identify its use. Hooked type objects are also known from Early Neolithic sites in Thessaly and other regions (Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, figs. 10.4-10.5).

The Taphonomy Exploitation Of Animal Resources Focusing On The Ungulates Availability With Special Reference To The Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Transition Katerina Trantalidou

Due to trench dimensions and, probably, to the more intense cave occupation,the Middle-Late Holocene material is, actually, the most numerous. The preservation of the those Holocene bones is better, since they retain more organic substances and are proportionally less fragmented than the material from the lower strata.

The trial trenches excavated on the middle terrace and in the deeper horizontal section of the cave produced 6305 bone fragments. To estimate the density of the bioarchaeological remains (Table 11) we emphasize that the dimensions of the consecutive trenches 1 and 2 were 2 x 3 m and those of the trench 3 are 2 x 2 m (Fig. 16.1, 16.2). The trenches had attained the depth of 2.50 m and 1.50 m respectively (see Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2009; Mavridis et al. 2012; this article). The upper layers contained mixed pottery from the Byzantine (5th-7th c. A.D.), Imperial, Hellenistic, Classical, Geometric, Early Bronze Age and Late Neolithic I and II periods. Therefore, the food residues corresponded to the same periods.

The Species The sample is dominated by the Caprinae family (63% of the recorded Holocene deposits). Bovidae (2.44%) and Suidae (1.84%) were also identified (Table 11). Sheep slightly outnumber goats. The presence of dog was sporadic. The sheep and goat bone fusion data are classified into a three age model. A division of bones into early (up to 10 months), middle (up to 28 months) and late (up to 42

253

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. months) fusion categories was used to provide indication of age at death, whether natural –to bad weather and shortage of food- or due to culling practices up to the flocks fourth year. Animals younger than two years are well represented, but we are reluctant to indulge in any further interpretation given the small size of the sample and the disturbed stratigraphy.

33% are shaft fragments representing less than 1/5 of the entire bone. Traces of carnivore gnawing are very rare. Comparative remarks have been noted on the material of the assemblage from layer 4, stratum 11, as well as from stratum 8 and, in Trench 3, stratum 6 (Table 16.11). The type of fragmentation from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto is predominantly, if not entirely, of anthropogenic origin (Marshall 1989). In other words, the taphonomic processes created two distinguished assemblages, from all points of view, which correspond to two different ecosystems, geological, and cultural periods: the Latest Pleistocene/Early Holocene (most probably Early Holocene according to the data from the present study) and the MidHolocene cluster. The total number of the edible wild mammals in Trench 1 and Trench 2 is 1895 fragments (Table 16.12).

Small game was important. Hunting of hare and partridge is still practiced nowadays in the same area, for example on the lower slopes of Mount Aigaleo. Hares seem to form 15.32% and birds 5.48% percentage of the assemblage. Apart from the dog and the small intrusive field mice, all fragments of the Cervidae - Equidae families and probably some hare and bird bones seem intrusive from the lowest levels. For instance, among the 2178 bones of the Holocene strata of Trench 3, wild fauna and especially big game accounted for 333 specimens, which constitute 15.35% of this assemblage. We are convinced that they are related to previous millennia. On the contrary, in the deepest excavated layers of the same trench (layers 8-10, strata 3-6; excavations 2007) of 428 bone fragments 65 (15.19%) belong to sheep and goats. The macroscopic examination shows that their deterioration is very different from the other bones (Tables 12; 13).

In fact, fragments of the three main wild species were found in every phase of occupation. They exhibit the same weathering, mineralization, discoloration, and fragmentation as those from the lower strata. It is obvious to us that some of the bones have been transported and dispersed either by animals and humans or by physical agents.

The Late Pleistocene/ Early Holocene Deposits (Tables 16.11-14, 16.17).

The Mammal Species Cervidae and Equidae family amount to 1249 fragments (in Trench 1 and Trench 2) and 1424 in the whole assemblage.

The Stratigraphy And The Faunal Composition Trench 1 and Trench 2, layer 4, which were subdivided into strata 6 to 14, yielded 2729 fragments. We focus our remarks on that material. The material is heterogeneous since 528 bones (19.34%) from those strata belong to domestic animals. However, the distribution of domestic mammals was denser in strata 6-7 (Table 16.11). The same composition is attested in the deepest excavated strata of trench 3 (Table 16.13).

Cervids seem to be the most important component. All parts of the animal are present. The 128 specimens (Table 14; Fig. 16.12) that were found corresponding to 65% of the wild fauna. The elements probably belong to the red deer since the flakes macroscopically seem more robust than those of the smaller fallow deer. 116 bones, identified on the anatomical level were preserved in less than the 1/5 of the initial bone. One premolar and one carpal bone were intact. From three other teeth (1 premolar, 2 molars) and one first phalanx, the 4/5 and the 3/5 of the entire bone were maintained. Finally, a cervical vertebra, a part of a tibia, and two first phalanges were preserved. A thoracic vertebra bears cut marks. A red deer bone (a tibia?) could have been the raw material used for the manufacture of the hook perform object (Papadea and Apostolikas this volume). All anatomical units were present. Deer that have been captured were prime or old adult animals, since all epiphyses were fused. Further distinction was not possible (Table 16.18). Red deer, tolerates a wide range of habitat from open moorland to mountain landscape and from mixed forest to forest. Group size is smaller in woodland area than in open country (Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1988, 13). The presence of red deer indicates mild, moist climatic conditions.

Bones of brown hare, a cervid, the small extinct equid, Equus hydruntinus, as well as bird bones (88 fragments) constitute the most important part of the wild species. They reached more than 70% of the bone accumulation in layer 4. The presence of a wild caprine is also not excluded. The Taphonomy The bones (Table 16.12) coming from Lepus europaeus, Cervus elaphus, Equus hydruntinus and some small unidentified Artiodactyls are preserved differently in comparison to the domestic species. They are fossilized, burnt (150 specimens corresponding to the 7.91% of the wild mammals) and highly fragmented. The fractures were produced during butchering, dismemberment (13 fragments bear cut marks, corresponding to 0.68% of the 1895 fragments of the wild fauna) and, mainly, during marrow extraction. 779 of 1895 fragments (42%) are flakes up to 3 cm long and a few millimeters large, while

No studied faunal assemblages exist in Attika that could be used for close comparison, but travelers reported the presence of Cervus elaphus on Mount Parnes until the

254

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES 19th century (de Heldreich 1878; Trantalidou 2000, 709735). The presence of red deer throughout the Late Pleistocene to Holocene is also attested in Epirus, in Thessaly (Table 16.15), the southern Peloponnese caves (Darlas and Psathi 2008, note the presence of daim and, sometimes, roe deer as well as Sus scrofa, Lepus europaeus, Felis silvestris, Vulpes vulpes, Martes sp., cf. Mustela, Ursus cf. arctos or Canis cf. lupus but in small number of fragments) and the Argolid Peninsula (Table 16.16).

Equus hydruntinus points to the existence of drier open conditions. That remark joints the observations on the microfaunal material (Papagianni, this article) and reveals a more complex landscape. The equid could have grazed in the plain in the western foothills of Mount Aigaleo, which, at least, in Classical Antiquity bore two small lakes (“Rhetoi”) and was an important wetland in Attika. The cave’s altitude (259m above sea level) is not far away either from eastern (circular plain of Athens) and western (plain of Thriasion) areas of level country and permits the carcass transport. In former times, previous to 19th c., terraces raised up on both sides of the western division of Aigaleo, the Corydallus area, were proof of cultivation (hypothesis of Dodwell 1819, 509) and, therefore, of relatively easy access.

Moreover, similar game components (Table 16.11) have been recorded in other parts of the Southern East Europe during the late Quaternary climate history (Tables 16.15, 16.16). The studied osteological material from the Seïdi Cave, near Aliartos, Boeotia (Table 16.15), contained fragments of Equus hydruntinus, Cervus elaphus, Capra ibex and aurochs (Schmid 1965, 163-164).

E.hydruntinus appears at the chronozone Allerød in the Ioannina basin (Table 16.15). The quantified remains of the animal seem to be less significant in the Argolid plain. Yet, it has been recorded in the strata of the Kleisoura 1 cave, dated from 37,500 to 9,150 BP (Starkovitch and Stiner 2010; Table 16), and therefore it was present during the Younger Dryas (12,500 to 11,700 yrs) and the Younger Dryas - Holocene transition. Its’ absence underlines the shift from cool dry conditions to warmer ones. At Franchthi, at the end of 8th millennium B.C. (10,0009,500 BP), as terrestrial resources declined the huntersforagers turned to the sea (Stiner and Munro 2011, 633). At the same site, the exploitation of wild plants becomes common in latter phases of Pleistocene to Holocene transition (Hansen 1991; Perlès 2003).

At the Franchthi Cave, in the Argolid, in the Late Gravettian layers (22,320±1270 BP) red deer was present (30% of the corresponding archaeological deposit) together with Equus hydruntinus (70%), Lepus, suids and birds. The percentages varied from 40% to 20% for the small equid, 25% to 70% for the red deer at the level of 12,540±180 BP and 11,240 ± 140 BP respectively (trench HH1, Late and Final Paleolithic, Payne 1975, 120-131; Kourtessi-Philippakis 1986), indicating an increase of the deer, a decrease of the equid and a continuous climate transformation. Similar faunal spectrum was also recorded at the Kephalari Cave, 5 km south of Franchthi Cave, during the Upper Palaeolithic period. At Kephalari Cave, the taxonomic diversity was very rich. Equus hydruntinus, Lepus europaeus, Canis lupus as well as Capra ibex, Bos sp., Sus scrofa, Vulpes vulpes, Lynx sp., Felis sylvestris, Erinaceus europaeus, Citellus sp., Spalax leucodon, Arvicola terrestris, Microtus nivalis were also identified (Reisch 1976, 261-265). On the contrary, Kleisoura 1 cave, only 11 km from Kephalari, provided extremely few elements of the red deer (Table 16.16).

Leporidae family totalizes 518 fragments (27% among the wild fauna; Table 17). A scapula fragment, two distal humeri and two ribs of the fast running animal bear cut marks and 40 specimens were visibly burnt. The exploitation of small game became an important component after the Last Glacial Maximum (Table 16.16). Finally, three fragments were assigned to a medium size carnivore, probably wolf (Table 16.11). They were found inside burned lenses located in trenches 1 and 2 (layer 4, strata 6-14). They are all pieces (a mandible fragment, a radius and a metatarsus) no longer than the 1/5 of the initial bone.

Equus hydruntinus, a species that inhabited Europe and the Middle East as far as Iran, for more than 300,000 years, is of some importance on Mount Aigaleo and at the southern Greek sites. Recent morphological studies on skulls and DNA analysis support the proximity of Equus hydruntinus and Equus hemionus (see Burke, Eisenmann and Ambler 2003; Orlando et al. 2006). The proximity to either Equus burchelli or the asses suggested by tooth morphology has been rejected.

Preliminary Considerations On The Use Of The Cave, The Environmental Conditions, And The Subsistence Strategies I. Mid-Holocene use of the cave. Disturbed archaeological deposits in caves are the rule in the Greek Peninsula, especially when they have been used to pen animals (Τrantalidou, Belegrinou and Andreasen 2010, 296) At the Anonymous Cave of Schisto, there are five reasons, which allow the archaeozoologist to presume that herding and keeping goats and sheep could illustrate one of the cave’s uses in both the past and recent times: 1. The upper terraces of the cave itself give evidence of recent sheepfold; 2. At the main chamber the stratigraphy of the

At the Anonymous Cave of Schisto 37 fragments are attributed to Equus hydruntinus (Table 16.11). One tarsal bone and one third phalanx were intact. Seven teeth of the molar row were preserved at the 4/5, 3/5 and 2/5 of their size. 28 bones were identified at the anatomical level. They were preserved at 1/5 of the initial size. The mortality profile suggests the capture of mature animals, but given the small sample it is extremely precarious to proceed with further interpretation.

255

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. upper layers contained open hearths and goat dung; 3. The animal species recovered (Tables 16.11-12) point to husbandry; 4. The ages at death of sheep and goat, which point us towards an animal penning (Table 16.18), and 5. The etymology of the geographic locality. The cave is situated on the southern slopes of Mt Aigaleo: Aiga =goat, leo(s)= people, so, by extension, the area where goat herders keep their flocks. 1. Goat and sheep herders could have come from different ways since the mountain ring Parnes (north) to Aigaleo (south) is interrupted by three passes: 1. The way north of Mt. Aigaleo (Jones, Sackett and Eliot 1957). 2. The Daphni pass between Athens and the head of the bay. The terrace of the cave overlooks part of the way to Eleusis, a road which could have been used by enemies against Athens, by pilgrims to and from Eleusis and the local sanctuaries or by sheepherders during transhumance. It is impossible to ascertain if the Cave had any connection with the precinct of Aphrodite situated on the Sacred Way or the Daphni Pan cave, near the homonymus Monastery (Wickens 1986, 287-298) during the Classical Times. The bone fragments found at the three trenches, described above, reveal no affinities with beliefs and rites. 3.The narrow passage from Piraeus to Skaramanga peninsula on the Salamis bay.The eastern slopes via that pass seem to be the easiest access and hypothetically the area could have been used by persons frequent the Athens plain. The time to walk the distance from the temple of Theseus in Athens to Korydallos Mountain, through Phalero, was calculated some1½ hours (Gell 1827, 101).

been full represented in the Anonymous Cave of Schisto. However, the acquisitions strategies and the exploitation of macrofauna at Schisto show similarities with the general trends of those occupations. A more profound and multidimensional approach is impossible since the stratigraphic phases of the sites are varied, the methodological approaches of the assemblages different, and the biotopes as well. At the same time, there is a clear contrast in the species composition (suids, red deer, hare, abundance of birds and fish) and in the segmentation of the carcasses observed so far in the Aegean Mesolithic sites located on the coast and in the plains (Trantalidou 2003, 143-72; Trantalidou 2008, 19-27; Newton 2003, 199-205). Suids and red deer are widely represented on several west European Mesolithic sites. 4. The material from strata 8 (Trench 1, layer 4) and 6 (Trench 3, layer 10) are too restrict to be reliable (Table 16.11, Fig. 16.12). They represent two different events and could document a restrict number of persons and discontinuity in the use of the cave. Those lenses could inform us that during the 9th and the beginning of the 8th millennium human diet rely heavily on small prey. A heavy reliance on lagomorphs has also been noted around the Mediterranean from Portugal to North Africa and the Near East at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary (Stiner, Munro and Surovell 2000, 39-73).

II. The deposits. The presence of bones from domestic species in the earlier, thus far, excavated layers (Tables 16.11-12), could be the result of disturbance (inclination of the deposits, action of water, human activities etc, see Mavridis et al. 2012; Karkanas in this article). At the Anonymous Cave of Schisto, about 15-20% of the fragments are intrusive. The geological mechanisms are also responsible for the presence of domestic sheep and goat bones in Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic layers of the Theopetra Cave (Newton 2003, 199-205). The effects of contamination are always suspected even in a good context (see Mavridis et al. 2012).

IV. The presence of the hare. The actual semi mountain limestone environment of the cave with xerophytes bushes and scanty pine trees seem not to have varied very much from the Neolithic period. Brown hare, an important component of the faunal assemblage at the Schisto cave (Table 16.11) prefers temperate open habitats. The animal uses woodlands as resting areas during the day. Brown hares feed mainly on herbs in the summer, and predominantly grasses in the winter. They can live on altitudes of up to 1500 m, so they fit with the cave’s altitude, which is about 259 m. The exploitation of small game (e.g. birds, hare, tortoise) occurs in Eastern Mediterranean in the Upper and Epi-Palaeolithic sites. It has been associated with Palaeolithic demographic pulses and the later evolution of food-producing economies (Stiner, Munro and Surovell 2000, 39-73).

III. The human diet breath at the level of 9,900BP. 1. The species distribution allows us to conclude that only one open hearth (Trench 1 and Trench 2, layer 4, stratum 11) was intact (Table 11). In spite of this serious handicap we can observe that ungulates represented the largest group, with 52 fragments (or 56.52% of the 92 bones recovered). Red deer played a more important role in the diet than the small equid. Hare encountered 39 fragments (42.39%). 2. Those three species, especially as far as the ungulate anatomy is concerned, provide us with information on the full scale butchering. Extraction of bone marrow and bone grease can also be attested (Tables 16.12, 16.13). 3. The diet breath (deer, equid, caprines, large bovids) of the Upper Palaeolithic mammal assemblages at Seidi Cave in Boeotia, Kephalari Cave in the Peloponnese or Kastritsa Cave in Epirus (Tables 16.15, 16.16) have not, until now,

VI. Equus hydruntinus in the faunal series of Southern East Europe. 1. No evidence exists, until now, that E. hydruntinus survived in the Upper Mesolithic (for the chronological correlations, see Facorellis 2003, 51-67) in the Greek Peninsula (Table 16.16), nor in island Mesolithic encampments [e.g. Maroulas on Kythnos dated from 9,755±35 to 9,350±35 BP and cave of Cyclops on Gioura dated from 9,274±43 onwards (Facorellis 2003; Facorellis et al. 2010, 133; Trantalidou 2003; 2008; 2010; 2011)]. That species has been identified in Late Pleistocene as well as Holocene deposits in more northern latitudes (for example at an elevation 700 m on the Crimean Mountains) but it becomes rare in the Early Holocene (9,150±150; 8,240 ±150 B.P.) (Benecke 1999, 107-20). 2. Certainly, most of the climatic events occurring in the late Pleistocene-Early Holocene are not synchronous

256

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

for the period in concern (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999, 94, 114, 190, 254, 262, 274). It is interesting that the genus Mesocricetus sp. is not represented in the modern Greek fauna anymore (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999, 206), something that can be interpreted as indicative of a different, possibly drier environment with steppe during the Palaeolithic, a fact also noticed in the Arnissa microfaunal assemblage too (Mayhew 1978).

throughout southern Europe and differences in resource exploitation have been testified even within the same small scale region (e.g. the inland and coastal Argolid plain, Table 16.16). Since changes in fauna are closely related to changes in climate and vegetation, judging from the presence of E. hydruntinus, it seems that in central Greece and the northern-eastern part of the Peloponnese the paleoclimatic conditions have some common features (Tables 16.15, 16.16) with respect to the Haimos Peninsula and the whole Easterm Mediterranean. 3. In the Aegean region, the onset of the Early Holocene is marked by a major increase of non-steppe herb pollen but precipitation was insufficient to support the Holocene reforestation until ~10.2 kyr BP. Throughout the time interval from ~9.7 to ~6.6 kyr BP, high percentages of pollen from broadleaved trees indicate that deciduous forests remained the dominating vegetation. However, several short-term, centennial-scale climatic deteriorations occur during this interval, centred at ~9.3, ~8.6, ~8.1, ~7.4 and ~6.5 kyr BP (Kotthoff et al. 2008, 1025).

The micromammal bones most probably have ended in the cave due to the roosting activity of prey birds, which roosted inside or immediately outside of the cave (Stahl 1996). Another taphonomic agent should definitely be the water action (Karkanas this article). The water that flooded the cave must have brought inside and mixed up pellets from the outside with dead corpses of micromammals that died in the cave. It has to be mentioned that the abundant bat bones belong possibly to bats hibernating in the cave and not in owl pellets. These bats could well have hibernated there in the Palaeolithic times as well, as some of their bones are black or dark brown, something that can be interpreted as burning (Stiner, Munro and Surovell 1995). The existence of two or three different species of bats at the same level can be interpreted as a coexistence of bat colonies in the cave, which means that the cave was probably not continuously occupied by humans throughout the year, as bats are easily scared by human sounds and presence. The presence of amphibians and reptiles, although not so dominant as the one of micromammals, can be interpreted as a reflection of the habitat outside the cave, which might have contained some source of fresh water (presence of frogs) as well as vegetation cover (snakes, lizards). Snakes might have also hibernated in the cave.

The scanty faunal material from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto is relevant for the biotope, the fluctuations of the environmental record (cool dry steppe like vegetation/ moist- mild conditions etc), the human hunting as socioeconomic mode of subsistence (Cervids, Equids, hares and birds, procurement of adult animals, scanty fishing) during the Early Holocene. Microfaunal Remains Katerina Papagianni The microfaunal material was collected during soil flotation and heavy residue sorting. Details about the flotation technique (still in progress), mesh and sieve sizes will be given in another paper (see also the contribution of Georgia Kotzamani, this article). A total of 12 samples dated at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic were examined under a Leica EZ4D stereomicroscope with 10x oculars and the following families, genera and species were identified: Rodentia (Spermophilus citellus, Microtus sp., Arvicola sp., Mesocricetus sp., Spalax sp., Apodemus sp., Mus sp.), Cheiroptera (Myotis sp., Myotis cf. myotis, Miniopterus schreibersi, Rhinolophus sp., Rhinolophus cf. Ferrumequinum), Soricidae (Crocidura cf. Suaveolens), Amphibia (Pelobates sp.), Reptilia (Lacertidae, Anguis sp.).

Archaeobotanical Remains Georgia Kotzamani Research Background The application of a systematic archaeobotanical study at the Anonymous Cave of Schisto, which produced evidence for Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene human presence in the area of Attika, has been triggered by the increasingly more explicit awareness of the need to investigate as many aspects of the Pre-Neolithic human activity as possible in order to reformulate the currently fragmentary framework of discussion regarding the socioeconomic and cultural complexities, that characterize the mechanisms engaged in the transition to agriculture in Greece (Kotsakis 2000; 2003; Valamoti and Kotsakis 2007). In the past, the Pre-Neolithic human agent on the Greek peninsula had been attributed with a rather inconspicuous and passive role in the radical socioeconomic actions associated with the beginnings of the agricultural way of life, which was apparently credited to larger or smaller population groups coming from the east and inhabiting favorable microenvironments of the Greek territory to plant the seeds of a new way of life based on production (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984). Until fairly re-

The majority of the samples contained bat and rodent skeletal remains with bats predominating. In most of the samples there were only postcranial bones, which for most of the genera are not attributable to species. Due to this fact, the majority of the rodent bones were not identified to genus/species level. The aforementioned identifications were possible due to the survival of dentitions, either upper or lower, which are the most characteristic skeletal element for the microfauna (Hillson 2005, 20-37, 73-103). According to the identified families and genera an overall image of a deciduous woodland or grassland alternating with open steppe around the cave is formed

257

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. cently, the Franchthi archaeobotanical assemblage, retrieved through excavation at the cave during the years 1967-1976, remained unique in providing clues on the modes of exploitation of the plant world by the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic human groups in Greece and in contributing to the discussion on the initiation of plant cultivation in the Mediterranean basin (Hansen 1991, 1992). Since the end of the 1980s, a relevant category of material began to be systematically concentrated within the context of the excavation project of Theopetra Cave (1989-2006) (Mangafa 2000; Kyparissi-Apostolika and Kotzamani 2005; 2006; 2010), in the western extremity of the Thessalian Plain, which hosted the first well documented agrarian communities in the Aegean. The collection and analysis of an archaeobotanical set from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto is to be viewed as a complementary research assay, aiming at contributing to the enrichment of the scanty archaeobotanical record from Greece referring to this largely still unattended but utterly challenging period of Prehistory.

Cereals are mainly represented by grains of wild barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ssp. spontaneum) and a few grains of wild oat (Avena sp.), both also detected in the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic deposits of Franchthi Cave (Hansen 1991). The high fragmentation levels encountered among the cereal finds lead to the accommodation of many seed fragments within the generalized category of non identifiable cereal remains. Complementary to the cereals is a series of wild pulses identified in the archaeobotanical assemblage from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto that includes vetch or vetchling (Vicia/Lathyrus sp.), lentil (Lens sp.), grasspea or vetchling (Lathyrus sp.) and common pea (Pisum sativum L.). The ruptured state of several pulse finds prompted their setting among more generalized identification categories, for example the “small seeded legumes” identification category and the more vague “indeterminate legumes” identification category. The aforementioned spectrum of plants is complemented by the carbonized or mineralized remains of the following wild palatable fruits: juniper (Juniperus sp.), fig (Ficus carica L.), grape (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. sylvestris), cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.), and elder (Sambucus nigra L.). Juniper finds that involve both the seeds and the carbonized parts of whole fruits as in the case of the Theopetra Cave assemblage (Kotzamani 2010), are among the most numerous in this category together with fig seeds. A few fragments of Pistacia cf terebinthus among the archaeobotanical finds suggest the probable exploitation of this plant species by the Palaeolithic users of the cave.

The Late Upper Palaeolithic Archaeobotanical Assemblage: An Overview Up to the present only samples deriving from the Late Upper Palaeolithic horizon of the cave (Trench 1 A/B, Layer 4) (DEM 1701: 10010-9260 B.C.) have been studied to a sufficient degree for providing potential clues as regards the contribution of plants in the cave dwellers’ living activities. The concise character of the present report confines the discussion towards a very brief assessment of their qualitative and quantitative aspects. The general attributes of the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene archaeobotanical assemblage from the Anonymous cave of Schisto are given in Table 16.19. Collection of samples from the cave’s deposits focused on clearly defined contexts bearing the remains of human activity, like hearths and/or plain concentrations of burnt material, so as to minimize the instances of accumulating disturbed and unstratified material that is frequent within the highly diagenetic environment of caves, and to maximize the probabilities of retrieving well preserved botanical finds that can elucidate aspects of the behavior adopted by humans for their elaboration and use. Samples were processed through flotation using a 1mm aperture mesh for retaining the heavy residue and two metal sieves with apertures of 1mm and 250μm for concentrating the floating coarse and fine material respectively. The main modes of preservation encountered in the archaeobotanical assemblage of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto are carbonization and mineralization, the latter very probably owed to the increased percentages of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) observed in Mediterranean cave environments.

Finally, the assemblage consists of a relatively narrow range of seeds taxonomically belonging to major or minor plant families, among which the representatives of the Boraginaceae family exhibit dominant presence. Due to poor preservation conditions several of them were only tentatively identified to the family level. The archaeobotanical data retrieved from the Late Upper Palaeolithic deposits of the Anonymous cave of Schisto hint towards the adoption by the human groups of the area of subsistence strategies focusing on a relatively broad spectrum of plant resources, that involved a variety of wild cereals, legumes and fruits in order to fulfill substantial nutritional needs in carbohydrates, proteins and vitamins. The role of the remaining wild flora elements of the assemblage, although potentially varietal, given the multiple inherent properties possessed by several of them (i.e. nutritional, medicinal or other), remains largely inaccessible in the light of available contextual information. Moreover, it is probable that many more botanical representatives of the surrounding vegetation would have been selected for exploitation by the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene human groups of the area but their failure to come in contact with fire and attain preservation in the archaeological deposits through it has resulted in the absence of any visible evidence for their presence and use.

The repertoire of plant remains retrieved from the Late Upper Palaeolithic deposits of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto includes several representatives of cereals, pulses and fruits as well as a variety of seeds belonging to diverse families of the wild surrounding vegetation (Table 16.20).

258

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

Late Neolithic I-IB Overall, the still rather turbid picture composed out of the so far available botanical evidence of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto, in combination with the respective contemporaneous data sets from the caves of Franchthi and Theopetra, is that of an active population inhabiting the Greek peninsula during the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene Era, engaged in operative links of appropriation and mutuality with the plant components of the natural world in which they lived and subsisted, whose actions, motivations, behavioral expressions, and contribution in the shaping of things are still to be quested for and configured. Future archaeobotanical work on the site of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto will follow research directions focusing on the recruitment and analysis of a larger data set covering the whole chronological sequence of the cave’s occupation, the clarification of samples’ contextual associations and the recording of potential uses of the plants comprising the botanical spectrum of the assemblage, which will hopefully contribute positive feedback on some of the research questions posed by the archaeobotanical study.

About 22% of the pottery from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto can, with a degree of certainty, be dated to the Late Neolithic (Fig. 16.13). The Late Neolithic period is most visibly represented by matt painted wares, typical for this age in most of the central and southern Greece. Our examples are usually made of well cleaned and well fired clay with few (if any) visible inclusions. Both inner and outer surfaces of the vessels are slipped with very fine slip. Following the application of slip, the surface of the vessels was most likely wiped, or perhaps first burnished and then wiped to remove the typical troughs that are the telltale sign of burnishing. An alternative explanation for the lack of luster can be connected to the firing procedures during which highly polished ceramic surfaces can lose their pre-firing luster. This treatment produced a surface that is very smooth but which is, at the same time, without or almost without luster. The color of the ceramic surfaces is usually of different hues of buff. The most common shape in the assemblage associated with this prehistoric phase is an open bowl with almost vertical or slightly incurving rim. There is also one example of a carinated vessel and one example of a shouldered bowl with a slightly spreading neck.

Neolithic And Early Bronze Age Pottery Fanis Mavridis and Zarko Tankosic The excavated trenches (2006-2007) have yielded a fairly large amount of pottery that can be dated to different Prehistoric periods with greater or lesser degree of certainty. Unfortunately, the stratigraphic situation associated with the pottery assemblages from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto is somewhat problematic. This lack of consistent stratification was a factor that did not aid in the identification and chronological assignation of the pottery from the cave. Since the bulk of the pottery is still awaiting proper analysis, we present here some of the more interesting pieces selected with the intention to illustrate the presence of particularly pertinent chronological periods. The more thorough and complete presentation of pottery is forthcoming and will also include new evidence from the future excavation seasons.

The defining characteristic of our Late Neolithic I sherds is the decoration, although undecorated Late Neolithic I sherds also exist in the assemblage. All fragments that bear decoration are decorated using paint that lacks luster. The color of the paint varies but is usually dark grayish brown, although in some cases it can be more yellowish brown or even close to red. The decoration is either applied on the surface of the vessel directly, on top of the whitish/buff slip, or, rarely, on a whitish base. All of the sherds whose rims are extant also have decoration on the inside of the vessel, just below or attached to the inner side of the rim itself. This decoration usually consists of a row of triangles whose apexes point downwards. The decoration found on the outer surface of the surviving sherds is always rectilinear. Its most common constituent stylistic elements or motifs are horizontal, vertical, and diagonal lines that can intersect or join. Sometimes the lines are arranged in such a way as to form fields. These fields can be left empty, but they can also be either solidly painted or contain one or more zigzag lines of variable thickness. Some of these lines are positioned parallel to each other, thus forming bands that are either filled with paint or left unpainted. Joined triangles also represent a motif found on the pottery from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto. Some of these elements are combined to form complex decorations. In addition to the matt-painted pottery, there is a number of monochrome fine burnished sherds that can also be dated to the Late Neolithic period, as well as sherds with incised decoration and some sherds coming from “scoops” decorated with horned handles.

Four Prehistoric periods can be identified in the excavated ceramic material with a high degree of certainty - the Middle Neolithic, the Late Neolithic I and II, and the Early Bronze Age. The Middle Neolithic phase is characterized by only a few (ca. 3% of the examined assemblage) fragmentary examples belonging to the red on white painted ware. The bulk of our prehistoric pottery can be dated to the remaining periods (Fig. 16.12), comprising more than 90% of the total assemblage, including both fine and coarse wares. The caveat is that only diagnostic sherds have been studied thus far, which makes this percentage prone to change when the study of the pottery is completed or, indeed, in the light of new evidence from future excavation.

The decorative motifs and vessel shapes of the Late Neolithic pottery from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto belong to the repertoire that is more or less common for this

259

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. period in central and southern Greece. For example, they can be found at Gonia (Phelps 2004, pls. 38.2, 43.18, 18a, 44.21, 83.6, 12, 15), Corinth (Phelps 2004, pl. 81.7-12), the Klenia (Phelps 2004, figs. 33.17, 39.1, 12, 44.22, 48.14, 53.3) and Alepotrypa (Phelps 2004, fig. 53.3) Caves in the Peloponnese, as well as at the Kitsos Cave (Lambert 1981, types 13, 14, 15, 18) or the Leontari Cave (the Lion Cave) in Attika (Karali, Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2006), and many others.

Schisto can be found at Kephala (Coleman 1977), Athenian Agora (Immerwahr 1971), and the Kitsos Cave (Lambert 1981). At those sites grooved decoration is used frequently, especially on scoops, and an exact parallel of a grooved strap handle (without the knob, however) exists at the Kitsos Cave (Karali 1981, fig. 237). Strap handles with knobs on top are also known from all three sites (Coleman 1977, BG, BH; Immerwahr 1971, pl. 13.205; Karali 1981, pl. XLII g), the Klenia Cave in the Peloponnese (Phelps 2004, fig. 51.16, 20), the Hagia Triada Cave in Karystos (Mavridis and Tankosic 2008; 2009a, b, c.), and others.

Late Neolithic II The Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic period is also well represented in the pottery finds from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto and comprises about 24% of the ceramic assemblage (Fig. 16.14). Since the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic is a very long and still insufficiently understood part of the Aegean Prehistory, the exact chronological placing of the finds from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto within the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic timeframe is somewhat problematic. Some features of the assemblage point to the links with the Attika-Kephala cultural and, perhaps, chronological horizon of the central Greece and northern Cyclades. They include the fairly typical incised or grooved decoration, in this case found on a broad strap handle. The handle in question starts from the rim and is, in fact, slightly swung above it. On the highest point of the strap handle there is a knob like application, which has many parallels not only from other Attika-Kephala sites but also among other examples from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto. Other examples of strap handles from the Schisto Cave, however, are not grooved. At the same time, some of the most obvious or at least the most expected characteristics of the Attika-Kephala pottery are missing from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto, e.g. the red burnished and pattern burnished pottery, coarse vessels with rows of perforations located under the rim (“cheese pots/pans”), “elephant lugs”, crusted pottery, and the Kephala type scoops (Coleman 1977).

The combination of incised and pointillé techniques, occasionally with white incrustation, is known from the Kitsos Cave in Attika, where Nicole Lambert dates it to the end of the 5th or the very beginning of the 4th millennium B.C. (Lambert 1981, 278, 290, type 6), the Pan Cave in Marathon (Oinoe II) in Attika (Lambert 1981, 279), and the Hagia Triada Cave in Karystos (Mavridis and Tankosic 2009a). This type of decoration is also known from the Athenian Agora (Immerwahr 1971, pl. 7.99) (only one piece) and other locations (Karali, Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2006). The open bowl with vertically pierced conical lug has parallels in the material from the Klenia Cave in the Peloponnese (Phelps 2004, fig. 51.10, 14). Jars with inward sloping conical necks are well represented at Kephala (Coleman 1977) and other Attika-Kephala sites and are rather typical for this period. Finally, pithoid jars with rope decoration are ubiquitous in this period [for example, Lerna in the Argolid (Vitelli 2007), the Hagia Triada Cave in Karystos (Mavridis and Tankosic 2008; 2009a, b, c.), the Kitsos Cave in Attika (Lambert 1981), Kephala on Keos (Coleman 1977) and others]. Early Bronze Age The most numerous pottery group from the cave belongs to the Early Bronze Age period; it comprises about 51% of the studied prehistoric assemblage (Fig. 16.15). The pottery of this period is represented by a variety of thickened “T-rims” that belong to open bowls or basins of different sizes that are often decorated by rope like impressed plastic bands below or on the rim. The second most common form from this period is a simple bowl with incurving and sometimes slightly thickened rims. Besides these, there is evidence for pedestaled or footed vessels (most likely bowls), and there are also several fragments of sauceboats. Most of the Early Bronze Age pottery from the Anonymous Cave of Schisto can be tentatively assigned to the Early Helladic IIA period, although there are several sherds that resemble, in fabric and finish, the wares typical of the Early Helladic IIB or Lefkandi I/Kastri phase, which is also equated with Phase III at Hagia Eirini on Kea.

Other examples of the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic pottery include vessels with vertical or slightly incurving rims, which are sometimes decorated with incisions but are more often left plain, hole-mouthed jars with inward sloping conical necks, and open bowls with horizontal strap handles or vertically pierced lugs not far below the rim. There is also some evidence for large pithoid jars that are fairly typical for the period and which are usually decorated with rope-like (taenia) impressed bands. The fabrics of the pottery that can be assigned to this period are much coarser in comparison to the Late Neolithic ones; they are often calcareous, medium to medium coarse, with many other inclusions. The surface of these vessels is usually only smoothed or evened or, in some cases, only slightly burnished and it commonly lacks luster.

The fabric of the Early Bronze vessels varies from fine to medium coarse. The clays are usually calcareous but they can also contain other inclusions, like schist, sand, or

Good parallels for grooved and incised decoration and strap handles with knobs from the Anonymous Cave of

260

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

quartzite, or have no inclusions at all (most often this is the case with the fabric of sauceboats). The sherds are often unslipped and their surface is finished either by smoothing or scraping, the latter of which produces the characteristic Early Bronze Age scored finish. The sauceboat fragments are always slipped and some are covered with Urfirnis, another hallmark of the Early Bronze Age II period. Some sherds have mending holes on them, suggesting the post-firing pottery repair.

Historical Times Lina Kormazopoulou From the disturbed surface layers of the main chamber comes pottery from all the Historical periods represented inside the cave (Fig. 16.16) (see Zampiti in this volume). So far the scarce presence of pottery sherds from the Late Geometric, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic use of the cave is remarkable compared to the vast numbers of such finds from the “votive” deposit.

Good parallels for our Early Bronze Age material exist at all locations where pottery of comparable date can be found; for example, at Lerna (Wiencke 2000, figs. II.5.P58, II.6.P96, P97, II.10.P175, II.13.P220-P223, II.14.P234, II.15.P261, II.19.P364, II.36.P650, P657, P658), Hagia Eirini on Kea (Wilson 1999, II.139-141, II.509, III:71, III.103) , Eutresis (Caskey and Caskey 1960, fig. 4.III.11, III.15), and southern Euboea, particularly the area around Karystos and the Early Bronze Age site of Hagios Georgios. Besides the Urfirnis, some sauceboat fragments belong to the yellow mottled ware as defined at Hagia Eirini (Wilson 1999).

Late and Post-Roman pottery is moderately represented in the excavated part of the main area, including mostly undiagnostic body sherds of plain and coarse wares. Reference can be made to a body sherd from a Late Roman 2 transport amphora with wavy incisions (end of 6th7th century A.D.), and the sherd of a jug decorated with a rough wavy line. A whole lamp from Trench 2 decorated with herringbone pattern on the rim and rosette on its half broken discus can be dated to the mid 5th century A.D. (Fig. 16.17). Late pottery in the main chamber points to a rather sporadic use of the cave, of practical character (for the use of caves in Late Antiquity in Attika, see Skias 1918; Wickens 1986; Schörner and Göette 2004).

The feature of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto’s ceramic assemblage that is immediately obvious is the almost complete absence of fragments of large storage vessels. This assertion is valid for all three Prehistoric periods in question suggesting that storage of goods and especially foodstuffs was likely not done at the site. This in turn points to the impermanent occupation of the cave during the time period between the end of the Neolithic and the middle part of the Early Bronze Age. Another problem with the prehistoric pottery assemblage from this cave is the lack of chronologically consistent stratification. For example, the pottery from all three periods is found mixed in all excavated layers of Trench 2 and, in some cases, sherds that were found in different layers can be joined. Similar situation exists in the other trench, at least as far as Late Neolithic and later material is concerned. The tentative and preliminary conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the pottery has been redeposited to its current position by the action of water combined with the natural inclination of the terrain inside the cave. The lack of sherds that belong to the larger storage vessels may also be explained in this way, as those sherds are usually heavier and therefore more difficult to transport by natural causes and, if there were any, they were more likely to remain in their original positions closer to the entrance of the cave.

Conclusions The significance of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto lies, above all, in the presence of multiple occupation/use layers that span several millennia of both prehistoric and historic periods. Particularly significant layers are the ones belonging to the Pre-Neolithic deposits. They indicate the presence of multiple strata that belong to the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene transition. Preliminary results point to an economy of hunter-gatherers with an important presence of wild cereals and pulses. This evidence together with the early presence of obsidian artifacts (Laskaris et al. 2011; Mavridis at al. 2012) indicate that what we knew thus far from the Franchthi Cave excavation represents a wider phenomenon. The date and the contents of these layers are potentially important for the poorly attested and understood transition to the Neolithic period in the Aegean. Regarding the prehistoric ceramic phases, very few sherds indicate the presence of the Middle Neolithic, while the Late Neolithic I and II phases are better preserved. The Early Bronze Age is also present at Schisto, which is not usually the case in caves (Mavridis 2006; Mavridis, Jensen and Kormazopoulou introduction to this volume). Unfortunately, pottery and a few lithic fragments that have been found until now come from contexts that are not stratigraphically secure and very little can be said about the character of the use of the cave during these periods.

The phases of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age were detected and defined through a number of characteristic pottery sherds and through a few pieces of obsidian. Unfortunately, no contextual associations were found in situ since the excavation showed that deposits were likely washed in and redeposited by the action of water. Dating of the material is, therefore, a difficult task, which is based on typological and stylistic grounds only.

The Schisto Cave use continued well into the Historical Times from at least the Late Geometric down to the Roman and Byzantine periods (for a detailed discussion, see Zamptiti in this volume).

261

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas, A. Sampson, M. Kaczanowska and J.K. Kozlowski, eds., Kraków, pp. 127-135.

Bibliography Adam, E., 2006. “Οι Aνώτερες Παλαιολιθικές και Μεσολιθικές Λιθοτεχνίες του Σπηλαίου Θεόπετρας και η Συμβολή τους στην Εκτίμηση της Χρήσης του Σπηλαίου κατά το Τελικό Πλειστόκαινο και Πρώιμο Ολόκαινο,” in Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., 2006, pp. 163-172.

Galanidou, N., and C. Perlés, eds. 2003. The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), London.

Ammerman, A. J., and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza 1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe, Princeton, New Jersey.

Gamble, C, 1999. “Faunal Exploitation at Klithi: A Late Glacial Rockshelter in Epirus, North-western Greece,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., (BSA Studies 3), London, pp. 179-187.

Benecke, N. 1999. ‘Mesolithic Hunters of the Crimean Mountains: The Fauna from the Rockshelter of ShpanKoba,” in Archaeozoology of the Near East IVA (Centre for Achaeological Research and Consultancy 32), M. Mashour, A. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin, eds., Gronigen, pp. 107-120.

Gell, W. 1827 (1810). The Itinerary of Greece: With a Commentary on Pausanias and Strabo and an Account of the Monuments of Antiquity at Present Existing in that Country, London.

Bullock, P., N. Fedorroff, A. Jongerius, G.I. Stoops, and T. Tursina. 1985. Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description, Wolverhampton.

Hansen, J.M. 1991. The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave, (Fascicle 7), Bloomington, Indianapolis.

Burke, A., V. Eisenmann, and Gr. K. Ambler. 2003. “The Systematic Position of Equus hydruntinus, an Extinct Species of Pleistocene Equid,” Quatern Res 59 (3), pp. 459-469.

Hansen, J. 1992. “Franchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegean,” in Préhistoire de l’ Agriculture. Nouvelles Approaches Expérimentales et Ethnographiques (Monographie du CRAN. 6, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), P.C. AndersonGerfaud, ed., Paris, pp. 231-247.

Caskey, J. L., and E. G. Caskey. 1960. “The Earliest Settlements at Eutresis. Supplementary Excavations, 1958,” Hesperia 29 (2), pp. 126-167. Coleman, J. E. 1977. Kephala: A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery, Princeton, New Jersey.

Heldreich de, Th. 1878. La Faune de la Grèce: Exposition Universelle de Paris en 1878. Première Partie, Animaux Vertébrés, Athens.

Courty, M.A., P. Goldberg and R. Macphail. 1989. Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology, Cambridge.

Hillson, S. 2005. Teeth (Cambridge Mannuals in Archaeology), Cambridge.

Darlas, A., and E. Psathi. 2008. “Le Paléolithique Supérieur dans la Péninsule du Mani (Sud de la Grèce),” in The Palaeolithic of the Balkans, A. Darlas and D. Mihailovic, eds., (Proceedings of the XVth UISPP Congress, Lisbon, 04-09/09/2006), (BAR IS 1819), Oxford, pp. 51-59.

Immerwahr, S. A. 1971. The Athenian Agora (Vol. III): The Neolithic and Bronze Ages, Princeton, New Jersey. Jones, J.E., L.H. Sackett and C.W. Eliot. 1957. “ΤΟ ΔΕΜΑ: A Survey of the Aigaleos-Parnes Wall, BSA 52, pp. 152-189

Dodwell, E. 1819. Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece (Vol. I), London.

Karali, L. 1981. “Céramique Grossière,” in La Grotte Préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique): Μissions 1968-1978: L’Occupation Néolithique: Les Vestiges des Temps Paléolithiques, de l’Antiquité et de l’ Histoire Récente, N. Lambert, ed., Paris, pp. 349-371.

Elefanti, P. 2003. Hunter-gatherer Specialised Subsistence Strategies in Greece during the Upper Palaeolithic from the Perspective of Lithic Technology (BAR IntS 1130), Oxford. Facorellis, Y. 2003. “Radiocarbon Dating the Greek Mesolithic,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds, 2003, pp. 5167.

Karali, L., F. Mavridis and L. Kormazopoulou. 2006. “Σπήλαιο Λεονταρίου Υμηττού Αττικής: Ένα Πετρώδες και Ορεινό Περιβάλλον. Προκαταρκτικά Στοιχεία για την Έρευνα των Ετών 2003-2005,” AAA 39, pp. 31-43.

Facorellis, Y., B. Damiata, E. Vardala-Theodorou, M. Ntinou, and J. Southon. 2010. “AMS Radiocarbon Dating of the Mesolithic site Maroulas on Kythnos and Alculation of the Regional Marine Reservoir Effect,” in The

Karkanas, P., O. Bar-Yosef, P. Goldberg, and S. Weiner. 2000. “Diagenesis in Prehistoric Caves: The Use of Minerals that Form in situ to Assess the Completeness of the Archaeological Record,” JAS 27, pp. 915-929.

262

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

Kotthoff, U., U.C. Müller, J. Pross, G. Schmiedl, I.T. Lawson, B. Van De Schootbrugge and Sch. Hartmut. 2008. “Late Glacial and Holocene Vegetation Dynamics in the Aegean Region: An Integrated View Based on Pollen Data from Marine and Terrestrial Archives,” The Holocene 18 (7), pp. 1019–1032.

the Cave of Theopetra, Thessaly, Greece,” in How Did Farming Reach Europe? (BYZAS 2), C. Lichter, ed., Istanbul, pp. 173-182. Lambert, N., ed. 1981. La Grotte Préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique):Missions 1968-1978:L’Occupation Néolithique: Les Vestiges des Temps Paléolithiques, de l’Antiquité et de l’ Histoire Récente, Paris.

Kotjabopoulou, E., E. Panagopoulou and E. Adam. 1997. “The Boila Rockshelter: A Preliminary Report,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwestern Greece (Vol. 2), Klithi in its Local and Regional Setting, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 427-437.

Laskaris, N., A. Sampson, F. Mavridis, and I. Liritzis. 2011. “Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Seafaring in the Aegean: New Obsidian Hydration Dates by Employed the SIMS-SS method,” JAS 38, pp. 2475-2479.

Kotjabopoulou, E., E. Panagopoulou and E. Adam. 1999. “The Boila Rockshelter: Further Evidence of Human Activity in the Voidomatis Gorge,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas (BSA Studies 3), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., London, pp. 197-210.

A.J. Legge and P.A. Rowley-Conwy.1988. Star Carr Revisited. A Re-Analysis of the Large Mammals, London. Mangafa, M. 2000. “Η Εκμετάλλευση των Φυτών από τη Μέση Παλαιολιθική έως τη Νεολιθική Περίοδο – από την Καρποσυλλογή στην Καλλιέργεια. Αρχαιοβοτανική Μελέτη στο Σπήλαιο της Θεόπετρας,” in KyparissiApostolika, ed., 2006, pp. 135-137.

Kotsakis, K., 2003. “From the Neolithic Side: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Interface in Greece,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 217-221.

Marshall, L.G. 1989. “Bone Modification and the Laws of Burial,” in Bone Modification (Orono, Centre for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies), R. Bonnichsen and M.H. Sorg, eds., University of Maine.

Kotsakis, K. 2006. “Η Aρχή της Νεολιθικής στην Ελλάδα,” in Κyparissi-Αpostolika, ed., 2006, pp. 173180. Kotzamani, G. 2006. “Η Aρχαιοβοτανική Έρευνα στο Σπήλαιο της Θεόπετρας: Mια Συνοπτική Θεώρηση,” in Kyparissi-Αpostolika, ed., 2006, pp. 135-138.

Mavridis, F. 2006a. “The Neolithic Site of Pangali, Mt Varassova, Aetolias,” in Chalkis Aetolias I. The Prehistoric Phases (Part 2), The Neolithic Remains at Pangali (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 7), S. Dietz and I. Moschos, eds., Athens, pp. 117-39, 222-9.

Kotzamani, G. 2010. Από τη Συλλογή στην Καλλιέργεια: Αρχαιοβοτανική Διερεύνηση των Πρώιμων Σταδίων Εκμετάλλευσης των Φυτών και της Αρχής της Γεωργίας στον Ελλαδικό Χώρο (Σπήλαιο Θεόπετρας, Σπήλαιο Σχιστού, Σιδάρι, Ρεβένια), Ph.D, thesis. University of Thessaloniki.

Μavridis, F. 2006b. “Ανώνυμο Σπήλαιο Σχιστού Κερατσινίου: H Περίπτωση ενός Τοπίου του ‘Κάτω Κόσμου’ στην Προϊστορία της Αττικής. Προκαταρκτικά Στοιχεία,” Paper read at the Β' Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας του Αργοσαρωνικού, 30 Ιουνίου-1 Ιουλίου, Methana.

Kromer, B. and K. O. Munnich. 1992. ‘CO2 Gas Proportional Counting in Radiocarbon Dating-review and Perspective,” in Radiocarbon After Four Decades-An Interdisciplinary Perspective, R. E. Taylor, A. Long and R. S. Kra, eds., New York, pp. 184-197.

Mavridis, F. and Z. Tankosic. 2008. “The Hagia Triada Cave, Southern Euboea: Finds and Implications of the Earliest Human Habitation in the Area,” Paper read at the Colloquium New Research in Greek Caves, May 24th, Athens.

Koumouzelis, M., J.K. Kozlowski and B. Ginter. 2003. “Mesolithic Finds from Cave 1 in the Klissoura Gorge, Argolid,” in Galanidou and Perlés, eds., 2003, pp. 113122.

Mavridis, F., and Z. Tankosic. 2009a. “The Hagia Triada Cave, Southern Euboea: Finds and Implications of the Earliest Human Habitation in the Area,” MAA 9 (2), pp. 47-59.

Kourtessi-Philippakis, G. 1986. Le Paléolithique de la Grèce Continentale. État de la Question et Perspectives de Recherche, Paris.

Mavridis, F., and Z. Tankosic. 2009b. “Η Θέση της Νότιας Εύβοιας στο Δίκτυο Επικοινωνιών της Νεολιθικής και της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Χαλκού: H Περίπτωση του Σπηλαίου Αγίας Τριάδας Καρύστου,” Paper read at the 1st International Symposium Styria Gaea, 3-5 July 2009, Styra.

Kyparissi-Apostolika, Ν., ed. 2006. Σπήλαιο Θεόπετρας: Δώδεκα Xρόνια Aνασκαφών και Έρευνας 1987-1998, Athens. Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. and G. Kotzamani. 2005. “Worlds in Transition: Mesolithic/Neolithic Lifestyles at

263

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. Payne, S. 1975. “Faunal Change at Franchthi Cave from 20.000 B.C. to 3.000 B.C.,” in Archaezoological Studies, E. Clason, ed., The Hague, pp. 120-131.

Mavridis, F., and Z. Tankosic. 2009c. ‘To σπήλαιο Αγίας Τριάδας, Κάρυστος, Ν. Εύβοια: H Ανασκαφή των Ετών 2007-2008,” Paper read at the 3ο Aρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας, 2006-2008, 12 – 15 Mαρτίου, Volos.

Perlès, C. 1987. Les Industries LithiquesTaillées de Franchthi. Tome I: Présentation Générale et Industries Paléolithiques (Fascicle 3), Bloomington, Indianapolis.

Mavridis, F., and L. Kormazopoulou. 2009. “Ανώνυμο Σπήλαιο Σχιστού Κερατσινίου. Η Ανασκαφή των Ετών 2006-7. Τα Πρώτα Στοιχεία της Έρευνας,” ΑAA 40-41, pp. 13-23.

Perlès, C., 2003. “The Mesolithic at Francthi: An Overview of the Data and Problems,” in Galanidou and Perlés, eds., 2003, pp. 79-88.

Mavridis, F., N. Laskaris, A. Papadea, O. Apostolikas, K. Trantalidou, G. Kotzamani, P. Karkanas, Y. Maniatis, I. Liritzis, and L. Kormazopoulou. 2012. “Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini: Dating of Obsidian Samples Oriented from Late Pleistocene- Early Holocene Deposits with the SIMS-SS Method,” in 2nd ARCH RNT, Archaeological Research and New Technologies, N. Zαχαριάς, ed., Kalamata, pp. 121-131.

Phelps, W.W. 2004. The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece, (BAR IS 1259), Oxford. Rasmussen, S.O., B.M. Vinther, H.B. Clausen, K.K. Andersen ANDERSEN. 2007. “Early Holocene Climate Oscillations Recorded in Three Greenland Ice Cores,” Quaternary Science Reviews 26, pp. 1907-1914.

Mayhew, D. 1978. “Late Pleistocene Small Mammals from Arnissa (Macedonia, Greece),” KNAW (Series B), 81 (3), pp. 302-321.

Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, C. Bertrand, P. G.Blackwell, C. E. Buck, G. Burr, K. B. Cutler, P. E. Damon, R. L. Edwards, R. G.Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T. P. Guilderson, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, S. Manning, C. B. Ramsey, R. W. Reimer, S. Remmele, J. R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F. W. Taylor, J. v. d. Plicht, and C. E. Weyhenmeyer. 2004. “IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 Cal Kyr BP”, Radiocarbon 46, pp. 1029-1058.

Mitchell-Jones, A., G. Amori, W. Bogdanowicz, B. Krystufek, P. Reijnders, and F. Spitzenberger, eds. 1999. The Atlas of European Mammals, London. Mook, W. G., and H. J. Streurman. 1983. “Physical and Chemical Aspects of Radiocarbon Dating,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on 14C and Archaeology, Strasbourg, pp. 31-55.

Reisch, L. 1976. “Beobachtungen an Vogelknochen aus dem Spätpleistozän der Höhle von Kephalari (Argolis, Griechenland),” ArchKorrBl 6 (4), pp. 261-265.

Moundrea-Agrafioti, A. 2003. “Mesolithic Fish Hooks from the Cave of Cyclope, Gioura,” in Galanidou and Perlés, eds., 2003, pp. 131-141.

Sampson A., J. K. Kozlowski, and M. Kaczanowska. 2003. “Mesolithic Chipped Stone Industries from the Cave of Cyclope on the Island of Gioura (Northern Sporades),” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 123-130.

Münnich, K. O. 1957. Messung naturlichen Radiokohlenstoffs mit einem CO2 proportional Zahlrohr. Einige Anwendungen der Methode, Ph.D. diss., RuprechtKarl-Universitat, Heidelberg.

Schmid, E. 1963 (1965). “Die Seïdi –Höhle eine jungpaläolitische Station in Griechenland”, in 4th International Congress of Speleology, Αthens, pp. 163174.

Newton, S. 2003. “The Mesolithic Fauna from Theopetra Cave,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 199-205.

Schörner, G., and H.R. Göette. 2004. Die Pan-Grotte von Vari (Schriften zur historischen Landeskunde Griechenlands 1), Mainz am Rhein.

Nydal, R., 1983. “The Radon Problem in 14C Dating,” Radiocarbon 25 (2), pp. 501-510. Olsson, I. U., 1979. “The Importance of the Pre-treatment of Wood and Charcoal Samples in Radiocarbon Dating,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Radiocarbon Conference, R. Berger and H. E. Suess, eds., Berkeley, Los Angeles, pp. 135–146.

Shahack-Gross, R., F. Berna, P. Karkanas, and S. Weiner. 2004. “Bat Guano and Preservation of Archaeological Remains in Cave Sites,” JAS 1, pp. 1259-1272. Skias, A.N. 1918. “To Παρά την Φυλήν Άντρον του Πανός, Κατά τας Aνασκαφάς των Eτών 1900 και 1901,”ArchEph, pp. 1-28.

Orlando,L., M. Mashkour, A. Burke, C.J. Douady, V. Eisenmann, and C. Hänni. 2006. “Geographic Distribution of an Extinct Equid (Equus hydruntinus: Mammalia, Equidae) Revealed by Morphological and Genetical Analyses of Fossils,” Molecular Biology 15 (8), pp. 20832093.

Sordinas, A. 1970a. Stone Implements from Northwestern Corfu, Greece (Anthropological Research Center, Occasional Papers 4), Memphis State University.

264

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

Sordinas, A. 2003. “The ‘Sidarian: Maritime Mesolithic Non-geometric Microliths in Western Greece,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 89-97.

Period: The Macrofauna Assemblages of Maroulas on Kythnos,” in The Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas, A. Sampson, M. Kaczanowska and J.K. Kozlowski, eds., Krakow, pp. 163-178.

Spathi, M., and D.Hatzilazarou. 2008. “The Cave at Schisto, Keratsini (Attika) in Historical Times,” Paper read at the Colloquium New Research in Greek Caves, May 24th, Athens.

Trantalidou, K., 2011. “From Mesolithic Fisherman and Fish Hunters to Neolithic Goat Herders: The Transformation of an Island Economy in the Aegean,” in The Cyclops Cave on Youra, Alonnessos (Vol. II), (INSTAP Academic Press), Philadelpheia, pp. 53-150.

Stahl, P. W. 1996. “The Recovery and Interpretation of Microvertebrate Bone Assemblages from Archaeological Contexts,” J Archaeol Method Th 3 (1), pp. 31-75.

Trantalidou K., E. Belegrinou and N. asen.2011.“Pastoral Societies in the Southern Peninsula: The Evidence From Caves Occupied the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic Era,” Anodos. of the Ancient World 10 [2010], pp. 295-320.

Starkovitch, M.C. and M.C. Stiner. 2010. “Upper Paleolithic Animal Exploitation at Klissoura Cave 1 in Southern Greece: Dietary Trends and Mammal Taphonomy,” Eurasian Prehistory 7(2), pp. 107-132. Stoops, G. 2003. Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil Regolith Thin Sections (Soil Science Society of America), Madison.

AndreBalkan During Studies

Trantalidou, K., V. Skaraki and I. Kara. 2006. “Πηγές του Αγγίτη στη Λεκάνη της Δράμας. Τα Κεραμικά Σύνολα από το Εσωτερικό του Σπηλαίου,” AAA 39 [2007], pp. 107-138.

M.C. Stiner and N.D. Munro. 2011. “On the Evolution of Paleolithic Diet and Landscape at Franchthi Cave (Peloponnese, Greece),” JHE 60, pp. 618-636.

Valamoti, S.M. and K. Kotsakis. 2007. “Transitions to Agriculture in the Aegean: The Archaeobotanical Evidence,” in The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southeast Asia and Europe (Publication of the Institute of Archaeology, University College), S. Colledge and J. Conolly, eds., London, pp. 75-91.

Stiner, M.C., N.D. Munro and T.A. Surovell. 2000. “The Tortoise and the Hare. Small-game Use, the Broad Spectrum Revolution, and Paleolithic Demography,” CurrAnthr, 41 (1), pp. 39-73.

Vitelli, K. D. 2007. The Neolithic Pottery from Lerna (Vol. V), Princeton, New Jersey.

Stuiver, M., and P.J. Reimer. 1993. “Extended 14C Data Base and Revised calib 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program,” Radiocarbon 35, pp. 215-230.

Vries de, H., and G. W. Barendsen. 1953. “Radiocarbon Dating by a Proportional Counter Filled with Carbon Dioxide,” Physica 19, pp. 987-1003.

Trantalidou, K. 2000. “Animal Bones and Animal Representations at Late Bronze Age Akrotiri,” in The Wall Paintings of Thera Vol. II, S. Sherratt, ed., Athens, pp. 709-735.

Watttez, J., M.A. Courty and R.I. Macphail. 1990. “Burnt Organo-mineral Deposits Related to Animal and Human Activities in Prehistoric Caves,” in Soil Micromorphology: A Basic and Applied Science (Development in Soil Science 19), L.A. Douglas, ed., Amsterdam, pp. 431-439.

Trantalidou, K. 2003. “Faunal Remains from the Earliest Strata of the Cave of Cyclope, Gioura,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp.143-172.

Wickens, J. 1986. The Archaeology and History of Cave Use in Attika, Greece from Prehistoric Through Late Roman Times, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University.

Trantalidou, K. 2008. “Glimpses of Aegean Island Communities During the Mesolithic and Neolithic Periods. The Zooarchaeological Point of View,” in Horizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research), N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas, and C. Renfrew, eds., University of Cambridge, pp. 19-27.

Wiencke, M. H. 2000. The Architecture, Stratification, and Pottery of Lerna III Vols. I, II, Princeton, New Jersey. Wilson, D. E. 1999. Keos IX, Hagia Eirini, Periods I-III, The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlements Part 1: Pottery and Small Finds, Mainz on Rhine.

Trantalidou, K. 2010. “Dietary Adaptations of Coastal People in the Aegean Archipelago During the Mesolithic

265

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

Figure 16.3. The area of the excavation (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 16.1. The entrance of the cave and the surrounding area (Photo by F. Mavridis).

Figure 16.2. Sketch plan of the excavation (Th. Hatzitheodorou).

266

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

Figure 16.4. Stratigraphy and representative finds of the Late Pleistocene/ Early Holocene phases (Photos by F. Mavridis, Illustrations by D.Yamaguchi).

Figure 16.5. Bar diagram of 2σ calibrated ages (Y. Maniatis).

267

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

Figure 16.6. Geomorphological analysis and sampled layers (Photo by P. Karkanas).

Figure 16.8. Blades (Photos by A. Papadea, Illustration by D. Bakogiannaki).

Figure 16.7. Flakes (Photos by A. Papadea).

268

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

Figure 16.9. Selected lithics: carinated scraper, point on flake, retouched blade, scraper, double backed blade, non geometric microlith (Photo by A. Papadea, Illustrations by D. Bakogiannaki).

Figure 16.10. Hooked-type bone artifact (Illustration by D. Yamaguchi).

Figure 16.11. Archaeobotanical remains: Avena sp, Lathyrus sp, Hordeum sp, Juniperus sp, Alkanna sp, Lithospermum sp. (Photo by A. Iliakopoulos).

269

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

Figure 16.12. Percentages of prehistoric pottery per phase (2006-2007).

 

Figure 16.13. Middle-Late Neolithic sherds (Photo by Z. Tankosic).

270

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

Figure 16.14. Late Neolithic Ib-II pottery (Photo by Z. Tankosic).

Figure 16.15. Early Bronze Age pottery (Photo by Z. Tankosic).

271

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

Figure 16.16. Historical Times: sherds (Photo by L. Kormazopoulou).

Figure 16.17. Sherds of Late/Post Roman pottery (Photo by L. Kormazopoulou).

272

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

δ13C (‰)

Laboratory Sample Code

Sample Loca- Material Radiocarbon tion Details Age (Β.Ρ.)

Calibrated Age (Β.C.)

Probability

DEM – 1701

J7, Tr. 1Α/Β, L.4, S. 11, D. 2.37 m (Deepest excavation layer)

Charcoal

9978 ± 100

24,00

9660 – 9310 10010 – 9260

(68,3%) (95,4%)

DEM – 1822

J3, Tr. 3Α1, L. 10, S.6, D. 1.69 m

Charcoal

7895 ± 55

24,02

6980 – 6630 7030 – 6640

(68,3%) (95,4%)

(OxA-19113)

J4, Tr. 1, L.4, S. 8, D. 1.86 m

Charcoal

8856 ± 39

23,40

8210 – 7940 8215 – 7820

(68,3%) (95,4%)

DEM – 1961

J3, Tr. 3Α2, L.11, D. 1.82 m

Charcoal

7076 ± 75

23,86

6030 – 5880 6080 – 5770

(68,3%) (95,4%)

Table 16.1. Radiocarbon results and sample information (Y.Maniatis).

 

Trench 1A Strata 4 Layer 6 Intact 1 Broken 1 Burnt 0 2 Total

Trench 1Β Strata 4 Layer 6 Intact 3 Broken 2 Burnt 0 5 Total

4 7 2 2 0 4

4 7 9 6 1 16

Table 16.3. Condition of preservation of knapped artifacts per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

Table 16.2. Condition of preservation of knapped artifacts per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

 

273

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

 

Trench 1ΑΒ Strata Layer Intact Broken Burnt Total

4 8 8 8 3 19

4 9 4 6 2 12

4 10 17 19 3 39

4 11 11 9 2 22

4 12 2 0 0 2

4 13 4 2 0 6

Table 16.4. Condition of preservation of knapped artifacts per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

 

Trench 1Α Strata Layer Unretouched flakes Tools Unretouched waste products

4 6 0 1 1

4 7 2 2 0

Table 16.5. Basic typological categories per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

   

Trench 1Β Strata Layer Cores/exhausted cores Unretouched flakes Unretouched blades Unretouched small flake Tools Unretouched waste products

4 6 0 1 0 0 4 0

4 7 1 4 2 1 2 0

Table 16.6. Basic typological categories per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

Trench 1ΑΒ Strata Layer Cores/exhausted cores Unretouched flakes Unretouched blades Unretouched small flake Tools Unretouched waste products Unclassifiable

4 8 0 6 4 0 6 2 1

4 9 0 4 2 0 5 0 1

4 10 2 16 3 1 17 1 0

4 11 4 3 4 1 7 3 1

4 12 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

4 13 1 1 0 0 2 1 0

Table 16.7. Basic typological categories per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

       

274

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

     

Trench 1Α Strata Layer Point on a double-backed bladelette End scrapper on flake Robust bec(beak) on waste product

4 6 1 0 0

4 7 0 1 1

Table 16.8. Tools per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

 

Trench 1Β Strata Layer Carinated scraper on flake Scraper on flake Retouched flake Retouched blade Retouched waste product

4 6 0 1 2 0 1

4 7 1 0 1 2 0

Table 16.9. Tools per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

 

Trench 1ΑΒ Strata Layer Retouched flake Retouched notch on flake Clactonian notch on flake Denticulate on blade Triple notch on flake End scraper on flake Backed blade Retouched blade Point on double-backed bladelette Convex backed bladelette Convex single scraper on waste product Point on flake Borer on waste product Borer on flake Retouched core Composite tool on flake Composite tool on blade Composite tool on small flake Composite tool on exhausted core

4 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 10 2 0 1 1 1 0 1; 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 0

4 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

Table 16.10. Tools per layer (A. Papadea and O. Apostolikas).

       

275

4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

 

Taxon

10th-9th Millennia BP

NIS P

%

Trench 1 and 2, Layer 4, Str. 11 9,978 ± 100 ΒΡ, 9,6609,310BC; 10,0109,260 B.C. NIS P

1.85

5

5.43

Cervidae CervidaeEquidae Lagomorph a

128

8

518

Artiodactyla

125

6.40 54.1 7 25.8 9 6.25

8.70 42.3 9 42.3 9 1.09

Canis lupus Canis familiaris

3

0.15

39 1

7,940BC; 8,215-7,820BC

6,630BC; 7,030-6,640BC

6th Millenniu m BP 8,856 ± 39 BP, 8,210- 7,895 ± 55 BP, 6,980- Present

NISP

37

39

Trench 3, Layer 10, Str. 6

%

NISP

%

%

Equidae

1084

Trench 1, Layer 4, Str. 8

3

4 18

100.0

3

30.0 40.0 30.0

NIS P

%

7

0.32

21

0.97

147 333

2

6.76 15.3 2

0.09 60.3 3

Caprinae Capra hircus

1311

Ovis aries

53

2.44

Bovidae

53

2.44

Suidae

40

1.84

50

0.23

Rodentia

18

0.90

37

1.70

Aves

88

4.40

119

5.48

TOTAL

2001

92*

18**

10***

2173

Table 16.11. Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Excavations 2006 and 2007. Total Number of Identified Specimens (NISP): 4284 fragments in the Mammalia/Aves Class. Comments: * Five of those bones were burnt at a heat of 250˚c-650˚c. Among them there are 12 flakes. One bone bear cut marks. ** Four fragments were burnt, one bears a cut mark. ***Five of those bones were burnt at a heat of 350˚c-650˚c. (K. Trantalidou)

                     

276

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

TAXON

NIS P

Modification due to Human Activities %

Side Burned

Equidae Cervidae CervidaeEquidae LBFR CervidaeEquidae

37 128

1,36 4,7

250˚cR L 350˚c 1 3 1 3 2 2

430

15,8

1 1 26

654

24

Lagomorpha Artiodactyla Canis lupus

518 125 3

19 4,58 0,11

Sub -total Caprinae Capra hircus Ovis aries Bovidae Suidae Subtotal Rodentia Aves

1895 69 461 16,9 11 0,4 15 0,55 23 0,84 18 0,66 528 19 18 0,66 88 3,22

Total

2729

350˚c650˚c

90

650˚c700˚c

Flakes cut marks

3

chopped 1

2

6

oblique, spiral

Modified: Animal Gnawing

1 16

1

68

3

654 2 3 3 3 1 2

6 3 4 3 1 2 1 3 6

6

15 4

1

4 2

35

112 59 1

3

12 1

37 3 1

779 15

4

1 1 1 62

3 2

17

124

4

35

6

Table 16.12. Burned lenses (found in trenches 1 and 2, Layer 4, str. 6-14) with more than 70% osteological material belonging to the Final Palaeolithic. Domesticated species are found mostly in the upper strata 6 and 7. (K. Trantalidou)

                             

277

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

  Modification due to TAXON

NISP

%

Human Activities Burned specimens 250˚c-350˚c

CervidaeEquidae Cervidae Equidae Lagomorpha Caprinae Rodentia Aves

81 21 7 243 65 9 2

18,93 4,91 1,64 56,77 15,19 2,11 0,47

TOTAL:

428

  

2

2

350˚c650˚c

650˚c700˚c

Cut marks

6 2 6 18

2

32

5

3

Table 16.13. Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Trench 3, layers 8-10, strata 3-6. Excavations 2007. (K. Trantalidou)

278

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

Element

NISP

Modification due to Human Activities

Fragmentation

Side

Cut Marks Skull Maxille mandible Teeth Scapula cervical vertebra Rib humerus humerus, d Radius Ulna ulna, p metacarpal Sacrum Pelvis Femur Tibia tibia, p tibia, d metapodium metatarsal metatarsal, p metatarsal, d astragalus calcaneum first phalanx Total

8 5 8 20 13 1 34 27 4 24 12 1 8 2 18 84 220 1 5 4 8 4 1 2 3 1 518

R

L

2 6

3 5 6

2 1 1

3 3 1

1I5 7 3 2 4 10

2I5 3I5 4I5 5I5 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 10 1 2 1

1 24 24 3 19 6

8 3 1 3 2

1

1 1 2

1 3 1 2

1

4 2 4

1

3

2

2

4 9

1 2

2 1

2

23

1 4 5

5 2 1 2

3 7 13 1 1 2 1

1

1

1 3

3 1

1 1

33 396

2

12 14

1

1 1

1

4 1

1

1

1

1

5 3 9 1

Flakes Oblique, Spiral

1 1

76 199

Burnt

1 1 2 1

4 2

2

MNI

1

1 2

37

24

17

1 23

4

40

37

Table 16.14. Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Burned layers (found in trenches 1-2, layer 4, str. 4-14) with more than 70% osteological material of the Final Palaeolithic period. Specimens indentified as lagomorphs are shown anatomically using the NISP (Number of Indentified Specimens) and the MNI (Minimum number of individuals) methods. (K. Trantalidou)

279

3

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS. Sites and Periods Epirus

TAXA

Bos sp. Caprinae Cervidae Cervidae -Equidae Sus scrofa Equus hydruntin us Perissoda ctytla Carnivor a Lagomor pha Rodentia Reptilia (tortoise) Aves

Thessaly

Kastritsa, Ioannina Bassin, Stratum 1, 19,400 ± 210 BP

NIS P

%

28

2. 4

84 747 +14 *

7. 3 6 5. 9

Total Data from (modifie d)

NIS P

%

NIS P 1

567 9 11

94 .9 9 0. 18

725 225

% 0.0 8 63. 48 19. 70

Theopetra, foothills of the Koziakas mt, Lechaios River, 14,895 ± 181 BP10,972 ± 87 BP

Keratsini, Mt Aigaleo, 9,978±100 ΒΡ Seϊdi, Copais Basin, Aurignacian- Gravettian Industry, Layers I-III

Tardiglac ial

Late Upper Palaeol.

Early Upper Palaeol.

NI SP

NIS P

NISP

1 13 13+ 1*

% 1. 75 22 .8 1 24 .5 6

%

%

NISP 1

17

29. 82

22

6+3*

15. 79

6+7* +1#

16. 18 10. 24

%

NISP

14 64

1. 2

6

0.5 2

2

6

4. 4 0. 5

X

10.0 2

1.09 1

30.0 6

8.70 8

55.0

14 20 42

0. 23 0. 33 0. 70

36 2 4

1 1. 5

202 10

14 115 5

21

3. 37 0. 16

1. 2

Kotjabop oulou 2001, 177

597 8 Gamble 1999, 178 (NISP 142,728 fragments **)

64 40

1.8 3 3.1 5 0.1 7 0.3 5 5.6 0

14 1

24 .5 6 1. 75

8

17. 54 6.5 8 1.3 2 10. 53

24

31. 58

10 5 1

1 14

1. 75 24 .5 6

3.9 5

5 13

5.43 5

3.6 8 9.5 6

14

10. 24

47

34. 56

19

42.3 9

0.7 4 11

X 133

1

5. 6 3

51

3.5 1

%

5.0

39

Pisces Other

Klithi, Voidomatis River, str. 5-10, 16,250±1 70 13,640±1 00 BP

Boïla, Voidomatis River, Units Ib-III, 14,310 ±100 10,190 ± 90 BP (uncal.), Epigravettian Industry

Mainland Greece

39

42.3 9

13. 97

3.5 0 1.5 7

18 114 2 Kotjabopo ulou 2001, 223 (NISP 1203 fragments ***)

57

76

136

20

92

Schimd 1965 (NISP 285 fragments)

Trantalidou in this article

Newton 2001, 118

Table 16.15. Caves and rockshelters on the western and central part of continental Greece, occupied throughout the 15,000 to 9,700 BP. Relative abundances of Ungulates, Small game animals and Carnivores. Key: NISP = Number of Identified Specimens. * Presence of roe deer. # Presence of daim. **107,750 are small, medium and large artiodactyls, treated collectively. Due to intense fragmentation, those specimens correspond to the 75.49% of the whole assemblage. *** 61 (5.1% of the analysed assemblage) are elements of the Cervus/ Capra category. Stratigraphic Unit IV 10,680 ± 90 to 9,525±75 BP at Boila did not yield any bioarchaeological remains.

280

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

Taxa Equus druntinus

Anatomical Element

Lagomorphs

Caprinae

Capra hircus

Suidae

Fused

1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 4 3 1 4 4 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 4

hy-

Cervus elaphus

Ovis aries

NISP

Unfused

Metacarpal,p Humerus,d Metacarpal,p Metatarsal,d First phalanx,p Scapula,p Humerus,d Radius,p Radius,d Ulna,p Metacarpal,d Pelvis Femur,p Tibia,p Tibia,d Tibia,p,d Metatarsal,p Metatarsal,d Scapula,p Radius,p Metacarpal,p Metacarpal,d Tibia,p Tibia,d Metatarsal,d Rib,p Thoracic vertebra Pelvis Metatarsal,d Scapula, p Calcaneum,p Axis

1 2 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 2 1 1 1 1

Table 16.16. Caves and rockshelters on the western and central part of continental Greece, occupied throughout the 15,000 to 9,700 BP. Relative abundances of Ungulates, Small game animals and Carnivores. Key: NISP = Number of Identified Specimens. * Presence of roe deer. # Presence of daim. **107,750 are small, medium and large artiodactyls, treated collectively. Due to intense fragmentation, those specimens correspond to the 75.49% of the whole assemblage. *** 61 (5.1% of the analysed assemblage) are elements of the Cervus/ Capra category. Stratigraphic Unit IV 10,680 ± 90 to 9,525±75 BP at Boila did not yield any bioarchaeological remains.

281

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

Element

NISP

Skull Maxille Mandible Teeth Scapula cervical vertebra Rib Humerus humerus, d radius ulna ulna, p metacarpal sacrum pelvis femur tibia tibia, p tibia, d metapodium metatarsal metatarsal, p metatarsal, d astragalus calcaneum first phalanx

8 5 8 20 13 1 34 27 4 24 12 1 8 2 18 84 220 1 5 4 8 4 1 2 3 1

TOTAL

518 

R

L

2 6

3 5 6

2 1 1

3 3 1

1I5 7 3 2 4 10 1 24 24 3 19 6

2I5

3I5

1 2

4I5 1 1 3

1

2

8 3 1 3 2

1

2 1 3 1

4 2 4 2

3 9 1

3 10

1 2 1

4 9

2 1 1

Flakes oblique, spiral

1 1

1

2

4 5

1 2

1

5 2 1 2

1

1 2

1

2

1

3 7 13 1 1 2 1

12 14 1 3

3 1

1 1 1

2

4 1

1

1

Burnt

MNI

1

5 76 199

1

Cut marks

1

1

1 3 1 2 1

5I5 1

1

4 2

Modification due to human activities

Fragmentation

Side

1 2 1

23  33  396 37  24  17  23  4 

40 

37 

3 

Table 16.17. Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Burned layers (found in trenches 1-2, layer 4, str. 4-14) with more than 70% of the osteological material of the Early Holocene period. Specimens indentified as lagomorphs are shown anatomically using the NISP (Number of Indentified Specimens) and the MNI (Minimum number of individuals) methods. (K. Trantalidou)

                     

282

ANONYMOUS CAVE OF SCHISTO AT KERATSINI, ATTIKA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON A DIACHRONIC CAVE OCCUPATION FROM THE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION TO THE BYZANTINE TIMES

    Taxa Equus hydruntinus

Cervus elaphus

Lagomorphs

Caprinae

Capra hircus Ovis aries Suidae

Anatomical Element Metacarpal,p Humerus,d Metacarpal,p Metatarsal,d First phalanx,p Scapula,p Humerus,d Radius,p Radius,d Ulna,p Metacarpal,d Pelvis Femur,p Tibia,p Tibia,d Tibia,p,d Metatarsal,p Metatarsal,d Scapula,p Radius,p Metacarpal,p Metacarpal,d Tibia,p Tibia,d Metatarsal,d Rib,p Thoracic vertebra Pelvis Metatarsal,d Scapula, p Calcaneum,p Axis

NISP 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 4 3 1 4 4 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Fused 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 4

Unfused

1 1

1 1

6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 2 1 1 1 1

Table 16.18. Anonymus Cave of Schisto at Keratsini. Ages at death of the main taxa, based on the fusion of the long bone epiphyses. Observations on material sorted from the burned lenses (found in trenches 1 and 2, layer 4 str. 4-14 ) with more than 70% of bones belonging to the 10th and 9th millennium sequences. The remains of the Caprinae and Suidae families are assigned to the Mid-Holocene period. (K. Trantalidou)

283

FANIS MAVRIDIS, LINA KORMAZOPOULOU, ANTIGONE PAPADEA, ORESTIS APOSTOLIKAS, DAISHUKE YAMAGUCHI, ZARKO TANKOSIC, GEORGIA KOTZAMANI, KATERINA TRANTALIDOU, PANAGIOTIS KARKANAS, YANNIS MANIATIS, KATERINA PAPAGIANNI,AND DIMITRIS LAMBROPOULOS.

Anonymous Cave of Schisto Archaeobotanical Assemblage    LATE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC  Total number of samples: 7    Samples with preserved archaepbptanical remains: 7  (DEM‐1701: 10010 – 9260 B.C.)  Total volume of processed soil (lt): 112    Total number of archaeobotanical remains: 477  Table 16.19. General attributes of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto archaeobotanical assemblage (G. Kotzamani).

      Sum of Archaeobotanical Finds  CEREALS  Hordeum vulgare ssp. spontaneum grains 26 Avena sp. grains  8 Cerealia fragments  +   LEGUMES  Vicia/Lathyrus sp.  5 Lens sp.  4 Lathyrus sp.  2 Pisum sativum  3 Small seeded legumes 4 Legumes indet.  10   FRUITS  Juniperus sp. seeds  23 Juniperus sp. fruit fragments  3 Ficus carica  9 Pistacia cf terebinthus + Cornus mas  1 Sambucus nigra  1 Fruit/Nut shell fragments  1 Fruit/Nut indet.    4   WILD FLORA  Polygonaceae  2 Chenopodium cf album 1 Malvaceae  1 Galium/Asperula   8 Lithospermum arvensis 193 Alkanna sp.  144 Echium sp.  1 Nepeta cf nuda  5 Ornithogalum sp.  5 Gramineae  8 Wild indet.  5   TOTAL  477 Table 16.20. Range of species and sum of finds of the Anonymous Cave of Schisto. Late Upper Palaeolithic archaeobotanical assemblage (G. Kotzamani).

284

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR. (Wabenverwitterung), von denen ausgemalt ist (Abb. 17.2a-c).

17 Das Gebirge als Lebensraum Zur kultischen Bedeutung und profanen Nutzung der Höhlen und Überhänge des Latmos im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr.

ein

großer

Teil

Neben diesen Höhlen gibt es zahlreiche Innenräume, die durch Felsversturz entstanden sind (Versturzhöhlen). Große Höhlen hingegen sind selten. Wir kennen bisher mehrere Karsthöhlen am Nordrand des Latmos und vier Spalthöhlen im Umfeld der Hauptgebirgskette.

Anneliese Peschlow-Bindokat

Die von allen Seiten auf das Gestein des Latmos einwirkenden Verwitterungsprozesse lassen dabei Formen entstehen, die an wilde oder domestizierte Tiere, an Ungeheuer, Hexen und andere Phantasiegestalten erinnern, und verwandeln den Latmos in einen Geopark (Abb. 17.3; s. ferner www.latmos-felsbilder.de s.v. Landschaft: Verwitterung).

Die Landschaft Das in der Westtürkei im Hinterland von Milet gelegene Latmos-Gebirge erhebt sich steil vom Ostufer des Bafa Sees bis zu einer Höhe von knapp 1400 m und schiebt sich wie eine Barriere zwischen das Mäander-Tal im Norden und das Grion-Gebirge, den heutigen Ilbira Dağ, im Süden (Abb.17.1). Wegen seiner gezackten Silhouette heißt es im Türkischen Beşparmak, Fünffinger. In der Antike bildete es den nordwestlichen Zipfel der Landschaft Karien.

Heute liegt das Gebirge ca. 30 km landeinwärts. In prähistorischer Zeit war es Teil der ägäischen Küste. Es bildete den östlichen Abschluss der großen, zwischen dem Mykale-Gebirge und der milesischen Halbinsel gelegenen Meeresbucht, die mit zwei Armen tief in das Land eingriff (Abb. 17.4). Dieser Golf war durch das Ansteigen des Meeres und der dadurch verursachten Überflutung des Festlandes als Folge der Klimaerwärmung nach der letzten Eiszeit (nach 10.000 v. Chr.) entstanden und erreichte seine maximale Ausdehnung um 4000 v. Chr. Danach wurde er im Lauf der Jahrtausende durch die Alluvionen des Mäanders aufgefüllt. Nur der südliche Meeresarm, der Latmikos Kolpos der Antike, blieb durch den weit nach Westen vorspringenden Ausläufer des Latmos-Gebirges davon ausgenommen. Dieser Teil des Golfes wurde seit der römischen Kaiserzeit vom Meer abgetrennt und schließlich in einen Binnensee, den Bafa See, umgewandelt (Abb. 1.6). Berücksichtigt man, dass der Meeresarm im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. kürzer war als der See heute und die fruchtbare Ebene an seinem Ostufer daher mindestens doppelt so groß, ersetzt man ferner die Olivenhaine an den Uferhängen des Sees durch Eichenwälder, die der Kultivierung des Ölbaums weichen mussten, lässt sich wenigstens hier noch eine Vorstellung des ursprünglichen Landschaftsbildes gewinnen (Müllenhoff 2005, 32-35; 218-222).

Der Latmos ist Teil des Menderes-Kristallmassivs, eines der ältesten Gebirgsmassive der Türkei. Im Tertiär wurde diese Region zum letzten Mal zu einem Gebirge aufgewölbt, ein Prozess, der bis heute anhält. In seinem Kern besteht der Latmos aus hochmetamorphen, vermutlich präkambrischen Gesteinen, Granit und Gneis (Augengneis) (Germann 1981, 215; anders Brinkmann 1971, 886-899). Die für den Augengneis in Gegenden mit subtropisch wechselfeuchtem Klima typischen Verwitterungsformen sind im Latmos besonders stark ausgeprägt und verleihen dem Gebirge seine unverwechselbare Gestalt (Philippson 1936,16): Die Plateauhochflächen und Hänge sind von zahllosen, durch die Witterung abgerundeten, ursprünglich rechteckigen Felsblöcken unterschiedlicher Größe übersät (Wollsackverwitterung), die sich am Steilhang wild übereinander türmen (Abb. 17.14a). Die von der schattigen und feuchteren Unterseite ausgehende Erosion höhlt die Felsblöcke im Innern aus (TafoniVerwitterung), so dass höhlenartige Innenräume entstehen. Im Latmos gibt es unzählige solcher Höhlen, ferner ausgehöhlte Überhänge oder verstürzte, an der Unterseite ausgewitterte Felsplatten. Dabei greift die Verwitterung die Felsoberfläche an und löst sie in kleinere und größere abgerundete Vertiefungen auf (Wabenverwitterung), die je nach Gesteinszusammensetzung von spitz zulaufenden oder wulstförmigen Stegen gerahmt sein können. Diese Formen verleihen der Felswand das Aussehen einer bewegten, lebendig wirkenden Oberfläche. Die Höhle von Kovanalan ist ein besonders schönes Beispiel für diese drei Verwitterungsformen: Die Ecken und Kanten des auf einem Felsen aufliegenden, ehemaligen rechteckigen Felsblockes sind abgerundet (Wollsackverwitterung), das Innere kammerartig ausgehöhlt (Tafoni-Verwitterung) und die Innenwand in zahllose nischenartige Vertiefungen aufgelöst

Unsere Kenntnis von der damaligen Tierwelt ist bisher sehr lückenhaft und beruht einzig auf Knochenresten, die aus einer kleinen Sondage in einer Karsthöhle bei Malkayası am Nordhang des Gebirges stammen: als Haustiere wurden demnach Schaf, Ziege, Rind und Hund gehalten. Als Jagdtiere sind Wildziege, Wildschwein und Damhirsch belegt (Gerber 2003a, 205). Die Kulte Der Latmos war einer der heiligen Berge Kleinasiens. Sein von allen Seiten aus sichtbarer Gipfel, der im Türkischen wegen seiner abgerundeten Form Tekerlekdağ, Radberg heißt, war Stätte eines uralten Stein- und Regenkultes (Abb. 1.5); hier wurde wie in anderen Bergregionen Anatoliens der anatolische Wetterund Regengott in Gemeinschaft mit einem einheimischen

285

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT Berggott verehrt. Die Bergspitze verkörperte den Berggott und war gleichzeitig Thron des Wettergottes (Haas 1982, 15.52 f.)

weniger eindrucksvoll sind die Siedlungsreste der byzantinischen Zeit, in der die Höhlen wie in der Frühzeit zu Unterkünften, diesmal für Eremiten, und als Gebetsräume oder Kapellen genutzt wurden (Peschlow 1996, 80-83; 2005, 161-201). Durch geschickte Einbeziehung des Felsens in die Architektur entstanden so Bauformen, die den Latmos in eine einzigartige Kulturlandschaft verwandelten. Erst in jüngster Zeit hat mit dem intensiven Abbau des Feldspates eine Zerstörung dieser Gebirgsregion eingesetzt, die bereits große irreversible Schäden angerichtet hat und auch vor den Fundstellen der Felsbilder nicht Halt macht.

An die Stelle des altanatolischen Wettergottes trat in griechischer Zeit Zeus mit dem Beinamen Akraios, wie der Weihinschrift auf dem Architrav eines auf der Rückseite der Hauptgebirgskette gelegenen und auf die Bergspitze ausgerichteten Tempelchens zu entnehmen ist (Peschlow-Bindokat 1996, 217-225 Taf. 38 Abb. 4-5; Taf. 39 Abb. 1-6; 2003, 9. 15 Abb. 9 a-c; zuletzt 2012, 67). Die Tradition dieses heidnischen Kultes ging mit dem Einzug des Christentums nicht verloren. Die Christen errichteten auf der Bergspitze nur ein Kreuz, um sich die Kräfte dieses ortsgebundenen Kultes zu eigen zu machen. Der Latmos war weiterhin ein heiliger Berg und entwickelte sich im Mittelalter zu einem bedeutenden Zentrum klösterlichen Lebens (Peschlow 1993, 651-716; 1996, 58 ff.; 2005, 161-201). Damals wurden bei großer Dürre Prozessionen auf die Bergspitze unternommen, um Regen für die Felder zu erbitten (Wiegand 1913, 116). Die Bergspitze war nach wie vor Zentrum eines Fruchtbarkeitskultes.

Die Felsbilder

Der zweite, rangmäßig niedrigere dieses Götterduos, der einheimische Berggott, ist als Personifikation des Gebirges zu verstehen. Seine Macht manifestierte sich in den geheimnisvoll und bedrohlich wirkenden Verwitterungsformen des Gebirges. In der griechischen Mythologie lebte er in der Gestalt des in einer Höhle des Latmos schlafenden Endymion, des Geliebten der Mondgöttin Selene weiter. Sein Name wurde auch synonym für die Bezeichnung des Gebirges verwendet (Merkelbach-Stauber 1998,180 ff.).

Erst in der letzten Jahren wurden drei neue Felsbilder entdeckt: eines in Lykien in einer Höhle in der Nähe von Tlos, das in spätneolithische Zeit datiert wird. Dargestellt sind mehrere geometrische Motive, Ornamente und eine männliche Figur (Korkut 2011, 96; Peschlow-Bindokat 2012, 69 Abb.7); das zweite an einem Überhang östlich von Manisa zeigt drei Hände und andere ungedeuteten Motive (Akdeniz 2011, 69. 71-73 Abb. 9-11); das dritte, ebenfalls an einem Überhang, wurde in Nordwestanatolien in der Gegend von Eskişehir gefunden. Es zeichnet sich durch Reihen von übereinander angeordneten Tieren (Pferde?) aus und wird von seinem Entdecker in das Chalkolihikum (5. Jahrtausend v. Chr.) datiert (Türkcan 2005, 38-40).

Neben den Tausenden von Felsritzungen, die sich bis auf zwei Ausnahmen auf den Osten und Südosten Anatoliens beschränken, waren bisher nur sieben Orte mit Felsmalereien bekannt, vier aus dem Osten und drei von der türkischen Südküste. Die Datierung dieser Petroglyphen und Malereien reicht bis auf wenige Ausnahmen vom Paläolithikum bis zum Neolithikum (Zusammenfassung: Peschlow-Bindokat 2012, 68-69). Hauptthema sind Tiere, vor allem Bergziegen und damit die Jagd.

Die Felslandschaft des Latmos hat nicht nur die religiösen Vorstellungen der hier ansässigen Bevölkerung von Anbeginn an geprägt (Peschlow-Bindokat 2009, 5562), sondern darüber hinaus zur Entstehung besonderer Siedlungsstrukturen, vor allem einer einzigartigen Felsbildkunst geführt. Wenn man daher heute von einer Latmos-Kultur sprechen kann, bezieht sich diese Bezeichnung nur auf den Einfluss der Landschaft auf den Menschen oder den Umgang des Menschen mit diesem Lebensraum und nicht auf eine bestimmte Bevölkerungsgruppe.

Die Felsbilder des Latmos Die in den letzten Jahren im Latmos entdeckten prähistorischen Felsbilder unterscheiden sich grundsätzlich von allem, was wir bisher über prähistorische Felsmalerei in Anatolien und im Vorderen Orient, ja darüber hinaus im gesamten Mittelmeerraum kennen. Diese Malereien sind einzigartig in Thema, Stil und Beschränkung auf eine ganz bestimmte Region und können daher als eine neue Feldbildprovinz betrachtet werden (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003; 2006; 2012, 67-115).

Und dieser Umgang blieb über Jahrtausende im wesentlichen gleich: Der Latmos war in Zeiten äußerer Gefahr ein vorzügliches Rückzugsgebiet. Das trifft bereits für das Chalkolithikum zu. Damals nutzten die Menschen die Vorteile, die das felsige Gelände bot, ohne es zu verändern: die Höhlen und Überhänge dienten als Wohnplätze oder Unterstände. Mit dem Übergang zu künstlichen Siedlungsformen wurde zwangsläufig in die Landschaft eingegriffen, doch wurde die Bauweise ganz dem Gelände angepasst, wie vor allem an der mit dem Gebirge gleichnamigen Stadt Latmos, der Vorgängersiedlung des hellenistischen Herakleia am Latmos zu sehen ist (Peschlow-Bindokat 2005). Nicht

Das erste Bild wurde 1994 entdeckt. Ihre Zahl beträgt mittlerweile mehr als 170. Das Verbreitungsgebiet reicht von den westlichen Ausläufern des Gebirges bis in das Çinedere, das Tal des antiken Marsyas-Flusses, und umfasst damit ein Areal von ca.70.000 ha. Zentrum der Felsbildfundstellen ist jedoch eindeutig das felsige Vorgelände rund um die Bergspitze (Abb. 17.6). Die Fundstellen beginnen direkt am Seeufer und reichen

286

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR. bis auf eine Höhe von ca. 930 m hinauf. Dabei fällt auf, dass sie sich seitlich der antiken Pflasterstrassen häufen, wo vermutlich von alters her die Latmosübergänge verliefen (Abb. 17.6).

Bei den Menschendarstellungen interessiert nicht das Individuum, sondern der Mensch in seiner Eigenschaft als Gemeinschaftswesen. Die Bilder zeigen Menschengruppen beiderlei Geschlechts in friedlichem Beieinander. Im Unterschied zu der nacheiszeitlichen Felskunst des Mittelmeerraumes fehlen auf den latmischen Bildern Darstellungen von Menschen bei Verrichtung bestimmter Tätigkeiten des täglichen Lebens wie etwa der Feldarbeit, der Tierhaltung oder der Jagd. Die Menschen tragen keine Geräte, Waffen oder andere Gegenstände. Es gibt keine Szenen von Gewalt, weder gegen Mensch noch Tier. Auf den heutigen Betrachter vermitteln die Bilder den Eindruck von Frieden und Lebensfreude.

Bei den Fundstellen der Bilder handelt es sich überwiegend um Höhlen, die durch Verwitterung oder Felsversturz entstanden sind, ferner um Überhänge, verschobene Felsplatten oder schräg überstehende, selten um senkrecht abfallende Felswände. Alle Fundstellen waren der Witterung, einige sogar der direkten Sonnenstrahlung ausgesetzt. Die Beziehung der Felsbilder zu den im Latmos verehrten Göttern steht außer Frage. Dafür sprechen zwei Argumente: 1. die Verbreitung der meisten Fundstellen rund um die Bergspitze, dem Thron des Wetter- und Regengottes. Einige sind dabei direkt auf den Gipfel ausgerichtet. In diesen Zusammenhang passt auch die Tatsache, dass zahlreiche dieser Fundstellen in der Nähe von Wasser oder direkt über einer Quelle liegen. In einigen Fällen fließt ein Bach sogar durch die ausgemalte Höhle (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 24-28). 2. die Lage der Malereien. Entscheidend ist dabei, dass sie bis auf wenige Ausnahmen nicht an den glatten senkrecht stehenden, sondern an überstehenden Felswänden, besonders an Überhängen und in Höhlen angebracht wurden und zwar vor allem an den ausgewitterten Partien der Felsoberfläche, in denen sich die Macht des Berggottes manifestierte. Die damaligen 'Künstler' bevorzugten als Malgrund die nischenartigen Auswitterungen der Felswand, deren Rand sie als Rahmen nutzten (Abb. 17.2b-c; 17.9a-b; 17.11b; 17.13).

Unter den zahlreichen Gruppendarstellungen überwiegen die Paare von Mann und Frau (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 45 Abb. 36). Daneben gibt es auch Paare von Mutter und Tochter (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 48 Abb. 39). Es geht bei den latmischen Bildern um die Beziehungen zwischen den Geschlechtern und um die Familie. Ein besonders schönes Beispiel für diese ’Familienszenen’ findet sich auf dem Deckenbild der ’Felskammer’ von Balıktaş (Abb. 17.7a - 17.8c). Die Fundstelle liegt in einem Seitental des Kavaklıdere auf ca. 370 m Höhe in der Nähe eines Baches (Abb.17.6). Die Rück- und Seitenwände der 'Kammer' bestehen aus Fels, die Decke aus einem großen, auf den seitlichen Felsen schräg aufliegendem Felsblock. Nach Süden ist die ’Kammer’ offen. Am Fuß der westlichen Felswand verläuft eine Felsbank, auf der man bequem sitzen und das Deckenbild betrachten kann.

Thema der fast ausschließlich in Rot (mit Knochenmehl gemischtes Hämatit) ausgeführten Bilder ist der Mensch, der in dem für die nacheiszeitliche Kunst typischen schematischen Stil dargestellt ist: Der Mann als Strichmännchen in Vorderansicht (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 41 Abb. 33; 45-46 Abb. 36-37; 48 Abb. 39), die Frau im Profil mit betontem Gesäß, das unterschiedliche Formen aufweist und häufig dekoriert ist. Die Frauen trugen Röcke oder Schurze (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 42 Abb. 34; 45 Abb. 36; 46 Abb. 37; 48 Abb. 39). Die Größe der Figuren schwankt dabei zwischen 7 und 50 cm, durchschnittlich sind sie 20 cm groß. Eigenartig ist vor allem die Stilisierung des Kopfes als großes M oder auch als großes T. Es gibt nur wenige Figuren, bei denen der Kopf scheibenförmig und der Körper plastisch wiedergegeben ist. Daneben kommen verschiedene Ornamente, Zeichen und Symbole vor (PeschlowBindokat 2003,71 Abb. 66), ferner Hand- und Fußabdrücke (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 72-32 Abb. 6768), wie sie auch sonst für die Felskunst typisch sind. Neu im Repertoire der Ornamente sind Blütenmotive, Rauten- und Webmuster sowie Linien aus versetzten Punkten. Tiere, Hauptthema der nacheiszeitlichen Felskunst Anatoliens, sind äußerst selten und spielen im Gesamtzusammenhang der latmischen Bildkunst keine Rolle (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 70 Abb. 65).

Die Unterseite, Vorder- und Rückkante des Deckblockes sind zu einem großen Teil in zahlreiche Vertiefungen ausgewittert, die wie die Kassetten einer Decke mit unterschiedlichen Motiven ausgemalt sind, mit menschlichen Figuren, Handabdrücken und zahlreichen Ornamenten (Abb. 17.8a). Jede Vertiefung stellt ein eigenes Bildfeld dar. Unter den figürlichen Szenen fallen zwei benachbarte Bilder der südlichen Deckenhälfte ins Auge, die inhaltlich aufeinander bezogen zu sein scheinen: Das linke zeigt als Hauptmotiv ein Paar von Mann und Frau, das rechte von Mutter und Tochter (Abb. 17.8a-b). Einige dieser zahlreichen Familienszenen machen auf den heutigen Betrachter den Eindruck von Hochzeitsbildern. Das trifft vor allem für das Deckenbild der am Nordufer des Sees gelegenen Versturzhöhle von İkizada zu, das bei der Deutung der latmischen Bilder eine Schlüsselstellung einnimmt (Nr. 7 in Abb. 17.9a). In unmittelbarer Nähe wurden Reste von acht weiteren Bildern entdeckt (Abb. 17.9a). Die Höhle ist durch einen schachtartigen Gang von Süden zu erreichen (17.9b-c). In dem Gang und in seiner Nähe fanden sich mehrere Steinwerkzeuge wie Hämmer, Steinbeile, Mahlsteine und zwei Silexklingen, jedoch keine Keramik.

287

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT Obwohl stark verblasst ist dieses Bild eines der am besten erhaltenen (Abb. 17.10a-b). Im Mittelpunkt der Darstellung, jedoch leicht aus der Bildmitte nach links verschoben, steht ein großes Paar von Mann und Frau. Diesem Paar nähert sich schräg von rechts oben eine Reihe von sechs kleineren, vermutlich tanzenden Frauen, die durch eine männliche Figur in zwei Dreiergruppen unterteilt sind. Über den Köpfen des Paares und der Tanzgruppe ziehen sich eine Zickzacklinie und eine geschwungene Linie hin, die wohl die Zusammengehörigkeit der Figuren betonen sollen. Links, ebenfalls schräg oberhalb des Paares, ist eine weitere Dreiergruppe von vermutlich sitzenden Frauen dargestellt, die größere in der Mitte, die kleineren ihr seitlich zugewandt. Die Zusammengehörigkeit dieser Trias, die bereits in der symmetrischen Anordnung der Figuren zum Ausdruck kommt, wird auch hier durch eine Linie über ihren Köpfen unterstrichen. Unterhalb dieser Gruppe befindet sich eine liegende (?) männliche Gestalt.

mehr erkennen, vielleicht war es ebenfalls ein Paar von Mann und Frau. Die Karadere - Höhle Die wichtigste Kultstätte des Latmos war abgesehen von der Bergspitze vermutlich der Karadere - Bezirk (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 58-65; 2009, 59-60; 2012, 73 Abb. 30-36). Er liegt auf einem Geländeabsatz am Nordhang des Karadere (schwarzes Tal), zu dem ein schmaler, teilweise gepflasterter oder aus dem Fels gehauener Pfad hinabführt. Der Bezirk besteht aus einem bis auf einen Zugang im Osten allseitig von Felsen eingeschlossenen, annähernd rechteckigen Hof und einer an seiner Nordwestecke auf einem Felsen erhöht über dem Hof gelegenen Höhle (Abb. 17.12a). Diese Höhle ist nicht mehr als eine verstürzte, schräg aufliegende Felsplatte (Abb. 17.12b), die an der Unterseite ausgehöhlt und in zahlreiche, unterschiedlich große abgerundete Vertiefungen ausgewittert ist (Abb.17.13). Die Höhlendecke wird ferner durch einen gelbbraun gefärbten, annähernd vertikal verlaufenden Streifen unterteilt, der die räumliche Wirkung dieses magisch wirkenden Innenraums noch erheblich steigert. Die Verwitterungen rechts dieses Streifens erwecken den Eindruck eines großen menschlichen Gesichtes. Der Felshang, auf dem die Platte aufliegt, bildet die Rückseite der Höhle. An seinem Fuß verläuft wiederum eine niedrige Felsbank. Für die Bedeutung des Platzes spricht auch die Tatsache, dass der Fußboden gepflastert war.

Wenn es überhaupt möglich ist, die Bildersprache einer so weit zurückliegenden Zeit, zu der es keine Vergleiche gibt, zu verstehen, scheint hier die Deutung als eine Hochzeitsszene am wahrscheinlichsten: Ein durch Größe und Stellung innerhalb der Komposition hervorgehobenes Paar in der Geste der Umarmung, umgeben von Dreiergruppen tanzender bzw. sitzender Frauen. So verstanden wäre dies die erste bekannte Darstellung einer Hochzeit. Doch handelt es sich bei diesen und den anderen Paarbildern nicht um wirklichkeitsgetreue Wiedergaben bestimmter Ereignisse; die latmischen Bilder sind vielmehr Ausdruck der Wertvorstellungen der damaligen Zeit, unter denen die Familie offensichtlich an oberster Stelle stand und für die man den Segen des Wettergottes erbat. Im übertragenen Sinn können diese Bilder auch als eine Allegorie der Fruchtbarkeit verstanden werden.

Außergewöhnlich wie die Höhle ist auch das Bild. Dargestellt ist eine Versammlung von - bis auf zwei Ausnahmen - in Vorderansicht wiedergegebenen männlichen Figuren, die nicht miteinander agieren, sondern auf den Betrachter ausgerichtet zu sein scheinen. Die meisten sind 'Strichmännchen'. Nur die vierte, siebte und zehnte Figur unterscheiden sich vor den anderen durch ihre Größe, ihr Körpervolumen und ihre Handhaltung. Offensichtlich tragen sie lange Gewänder. Die Hauptfigur scheint die vierte von links zu sein, die durch ihre erhöhte Stellung unterhalb eines bogenförmigen Verwitterungsstegs der Felswand und ihre geballten Fäuste vor den anderen hervorgehoben ist. Auffallend ist der T-förmige Kopfaufsatz einiger Figuren, besonders bei der Hauptfigur. Dieser Kopfaufsatz ist vermutlich als Hörner zu verstehen. Figuren mit Hörnern auf dem Kopf gibt es bereits seit dem Paläolithikum; sie werden als Hörnergötter, Zauberer oder Schamanen gedeutet wie z. B. die berühmte Mischfigur aus Mensch und Tier aus der Höhle Les Trois-Frères in Frankreich ( Leroi-Gourhan 1973, 150 Abb. 57; 153. 159-160; Vialon 1992, 295-296 Abb. 317; Clottes-Lewis-Williams 2001, 108).

Das Göktepe - Bild Gleiches gilt für das Felsbild des Göktepe, das wir ebenfalls als Hochzeitsdarstellung deuten. Die Fundstelle, die aus einem von mehreren Felsen eingefassten Hof mit Eingang an der Westseite besteht (Abb.17.11a), vermittelt den Eindruck eines kleinen Naturheiligtums. Der Fels an der Ostseite des Hofes ist durch einen Spalt in eine Bank und einen Überhang unterteilt. Die ausgewitterte Unterseite und Wand dieses Überhang ist ausgemalt (Abb. 17.11b). Das Hauptbild nimmt die südliche, stärker ausgewitterte Hälfte des Überhangs ein. Zu erkennen sind mehrere Paare von Männern und Frauen, eine Frau vor einer rechten Hand, Zweiergruppen von tanzenden Frauen und weitere menschliche Figuren, ferner zwei Hände und einige Zeichen. Das am besten erhaltene Paar ist das am rechten oberen Bildrand (Abb. 17.11c). Mittelpunkt des Geschehens ist höchstwahrscheinlich die Szene in der nischenförmigen Auswitterung im unteren Bildfeld, deren Rand künstlich abgekantet und von einem roten Streifen gerahmt ist (Abb. 17.11b). Wegen des schlechten Erhaltungszustandes lässt sich das Motiv jedoch nicht

Das Karadere-Bild hat nichts mit den Familienszenen der anderen latmischen Malereien zu tun und muss daher eine andere Bedeutung haben. Dafür spricht auch folgende Beobachtung: Aus dem Felsboden vor dem Höhleneingang ist eine runde Schale gehauen (PeschlowBindokat 2003, 62 Abb. 55 a-b). Schaut man von dieser Stelle in Richtung der Hauptgebirgskette, sieht man nur

288

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR. die Bergspitze, den Thron des Wettergottes (PeschlowBindokat 2003, 63 Abb. 56). Die Schale wurde vielleicht für Trankopfer genutzt, die dem Wettergott bei gewissen Anlässen, vielleicht in Zeiten großer Trockenheit, dargebracht wurden, um Regen zu erflehen. Der Gedanke, in der Hauptgestalt des Höhlenbildes den Wettergott zu erkennen, ist daher nicht ganz abwegig. Der Wettergott wurde ursprünglich als Stier und erst ab dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. anthropomorph dargestellt (Haas 1982, 15. 72-74). Sollte unsere Deutung zutreffen, würde die Gestalt der Karadere - Höhle den Übergang von der zoo- zur anthropomorphen Auffassung des Gottes widerspiegeln. Es soll jedoch nicht unerwähnt bleiben, dass unter dem Aspekt des Regenzaubers auch eine Deutung der Figur als Schamane möglich wäre, vorausgesetzt, dass derartige Vorstellungen im ostägäischen Raum damals noch lebendig waren.

Falle von Malkayası um eine wirkliche Höhle. Die anderen bestehen in der für den Latmos typischen Weise aus innen ausgewitterten Felsblöcken oder durch Felsversturz entstandenen Innenräumen. Allen gemeinsam ist die versteckte Lage am Felshang, an dem man wegen der schweren Zugänglichkeit an sich keine Besiedlung erwarten würde. Der eindeutige Beweis, dass diese Höhlen nicht nur gelegentlich genutzt wurden, sondern tatsächlich auch bewohnt waren, ist die Malkayası-Höhle, in deren Eingangsbereich Sondagen durchgeführt wurden (Gerber 2003a, 204-210, 2003b, 84 Abb. 81 a-81 d; 2012, 74-75 Abb. 37-47). Dabei wurden zwei Fußböden mit Herdstellen freigelegt. Gemessen an der geringen Ausdehnung und Tiefe des Grabungsareals überrascht die Fülle und die Vielfalt des Fundmaterials, darunter auch Spinnwirteln und Webgewichte. Zu den Funden zählen auch zwei marmorne Idole, ein Kykladenidol und der obere Teil einer Statuette vom Typ Kiliya sowie der Kopf einer weiteren größeren Tonfigur.

Zu Wohnzwecken dienten die Fundstellen der Bilder nicht. Die Menschen haben sich hier zwar gelegentlich aufgehalten, wie einige Funde beweisen, jedoch haben sie hier nicht ständig gelebt. Die Fundstellen der Felsbilder waren vermutlich Kultstätten, die in Zusammenhang mit dem Fruchtbarkeitskult auf der Bergspitze zu sehen sind.

Die Fundstellen am Südhang des Gebirges häufen sich in dem nördlich der alten Stadt Latmos gelegenen Tal der Christus-Höhle und dem sich westlich anschließenden Felshang, die wegen der Funddichte als eine kleine Ansiedlung betrachtet werden können (Abb. 17.14a-b). Das schwer zugängliche, weitgehend durch Felsblöcke verstellte Tal ist nur über einen schmalen, vermutlich in byzantinischer Zeit gepflasterten Pfad zu erreichen. Es bot nicht nur große Sicherheit, sondern hatte auch den Vorteil von Wasservorkommen. Im oberen Talbereich entspringen zwei Quellen, aus der größeren speist sich der Bach, der die Stadt Latmos mit Wasser versorgte. Im Mittelalter hatten sich Eremiten hierher zurückgezogen. Zentraler Andachtsort war eine große, mit Fresken ausgemalte Höhle mit Szenen aus dem Leben Christi (Nr.2 auf Plan Abb.17.14b). Diese geräumige, gut begehbare Höhle besteht aus einem gewaltigen, nach Norden schräg aufliegendem Felsblock, der innen wie eine tonnengewölbte Kammer ausgewittert ist (Abb. 17.15a-b). Sie wurde bereits in prähistorischer Zeit genutzt, wie zahlreiche Funde aus einer Lücke an der Nordostecke der Höhlenwand beweisen, darunter ein Miniaturgefäß mit einem menschlichen Gesicht, das hier vermutlich deponiert wurde und wegen seiner geringen Größe nur als Votivgabe zu verstehen ist (Abb.17.15c-d). Möglicherweise diente die Christus-Höhle damals schon rituellen Zwecken und war ähnlich wie im Mittelalter kultischer Mittelpunkt dieser kleinen Ansiedlung. Vielleicht war sie das Heiligtum des Berggottes.

Die latmischen Felsmalereien repräsentieren eine neue Bilderwelt, deren Deutung mangels Vergleiche sich nur auf ihr Umfeld und die Darstellungen selbst stützen kann. Einen Hinweis für eine Datierung gaben zunächst die Ornamente auf den Röcken oder Schurzen der Frauen, die mit Motiven der bemalten mittelchalkolithischen Keramik von Hacılar übereinstimmen (Mellaart 1970, 2556). Diese Datierung konnte durch entsprechende Siedlungsfunde mittlerweile auf eine sichere Basis gestellt werden. Wohn- und Kultplätze Die bisher bekannten Siedlungsplätze der zu den Felsbildern gehörenden Bevölkerung beschränken sich auf den Südhang des Gebirges östlich und westlich von Herakleia bis auf eine Ausnahme, der am Nordrand des Gebirges gelegenen Karsthöhle von Malkayası (Abb.17.6). In dem an Malereien so reichen nördlichen und südlichen felsigen Vorgelände der Hauptgebirgskette wurden trotz intensiver Suche nur einige Keramikbruchstücke, eine Obsidianklinge und zwei Mahlsteine registriert. Es sieht demnach so aus, als hätten die Menschen damals die Felsunterkünfte am Fuß des Gebirges in der Nähe der Küste als Lebensraum bevorzugt (Abb. 1.6). Bisher ist nur ein einziger Siedlungshügel in der Ebene bekannt, der den Oberflächenfunden nach zu urteilen ab der frühen Bronzezeit bewohnt war. Es ist der flache, am Südufer des Sees bei Ioniapolis gelegene Belentepesi, der jedoch noch nicht genauer untersucht wurde (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003, 20 Abb.1b; 29 Abb. 23 b).

Eine südlich der Christus-Höhle gelegene, als Unterkunft ausgewiesene Versturzhöhle (Nr. 5 auf Plan Abb. 17.14b) soll stellvertretend für die zahlreichen anderen Fundplätze hier kurz vorgestellt werden. Sie besteht aus zwei großen Felsen; der an der Nordseite ist leicht nach innen geneigt, der die Südwand bildende liegt schräg auf dem nördlichen auf, schließt oben aber nicht ganz ab, so dass Regen eindringen kann (Abb. 17.16a-c). Der Eingang liegt an der Westseite. Im Osten begrenzt ein niedriger Felsblock den Raum, so dass eine große,

Die bisher bekannten prähistorischen Fundstellen des Latmos, von denen einige zweifelsfrei als Unterkunft genutzt wurden, liegen in der Mehrzahl am unteren Hang des Gebirges. Bei diesen Plätzen handelt es sich nur im

289

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT fensterartige Öffnung entsteht. Der im Querschnitt dreieckige Raum ist mit 8 m Länge, 4,20 m Tiefe und max. 3,20 m Höhe recht geräumig. An der Nordostecke liegt ein 1 m hoher Felsen mit einem Rücksprung an der Südseite; hier befand sich vielleicht die Herdstelle. Südlich davon eine runde Steinsetzung. Als Hof diente vermutlich der annähernd runde und bis auf die Westseite von Felsen eingeschlossene Platz südlich der Höhle.

Kulturkreises enger zusammen, eine Feststellung, die bei der geographischen Nähe von Insel zu Festland auch nicht weiter verwundert. Nur ein bemaltes Schalenfragment aus der Malkayası-Höhle zeigt Verbindungen nach Hacılar. Ebenso wird in den Felsbildern, vor allem in der Ornamentik, anatolischer Einfluss deutlich spürbar. Die auf den Vergleich mit den Ornamenten der Keramik von Hacılar basierende Datierung der latmischen Bilder in die 2. Hälfte des 6. und in die erste Hälfte des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr., auf die oben bereits hingewiesen wurde, würde mit der Frühphase von Kastro Tigani übereinstimmen. Vor einer abschließenden Beurteilung muss jedoch noch eine systematische Auswertung des gesamten latmischen Fundmaterials erfolgen, die bisher noch aussteht.

Die Menge des an diesem Platz und den übrigen Stellen des Tales und des westlich anschließenden Hanges aufgelesenen Fundmaterials ist beachtlich und umfasst neben Gebrauchskeramik unterschiedlicher Form zahlreiche Steingeräte, Pfeilspitzen, Obsidian- und Silexklingen, auch einige Spinnwirteln und mehrere Tierfiguren aus Ton. Zu dem bereits erwähnten Miniaturgefäß aus der Christus-Höhle (Abb. 17.15c-b) kommen zwei weitere, die aus einer Felsspalte südwestlich oberhalb der Christus-Höhle stammen und wegen ihrer Lage nur hier als Votivgaben deponiert worden sein können. Bei dem einen handelt es sich um einen zweihenkligen kleinen Becher (Abb. 17.17a), bei dem anderen um eine kleine Tierfigur bzw. ein zoomorphes Gefäß (Abb. 17.17b). Unter den Felsen am Hang westlich des Tales fanden sich mehrere Tierfiguren aus Ton, darunter die eines Bären (Abb. 17.21a). Der interessanteste Fund der letzten Jahre kam in der Nähe dieser Fundstelle zutage, ein Halsamphorenfragment mit einer applizierten männlichen Figur mit zwei Hörnern auf dem Kopf, die an die Gestalt des Wettergottes aus der Karadere - Höhle erinnert (Abb. 17.21b).

Die zahllosen unterschiedlichen Funde aus den Höhlen und von den Überhängen des Latmos beweisen, dass man an diesen Plätzen arbeitete und wohnte, jedoch wegen der Einheitlichkeit der Keramik offensichtlich nur über einen begrenzten Zeitraum. Frühbronzezeitliche Siedlungsreste aus dem Gebirge fehlen bisher. Gegen eine bloß sporadische oder saisonale Nutzung der Höhlen und Überhänge sprechen die Menge und Vielfalt des Fundmaterials, die Nähe zu der fruchtbaren Küstenebene, die Unzugänglichkeit des Geländes und der Mangel an Weideflächen für das Vieh. Mit einer halbnomadischen Lebensweise hat diese Siedlungsform daher nichts zu tun. Grund für den Rückzug in das felsige Gelände, das zwar Schutz, aber keine angenehmen Lebensbedingungen bot, war vielleicht eine äußere, zeitlich begrenzte Bedrohung, deren Ursache wir bisher nicht kennen. Dies scheint vorläufig die beste Erklärung für diese für die Gegend und die Zeit ungewöhnliche Siedlungsform zu sein, in der man normalerweise in Häusern lebte wie auf Chios und Samos. Die Siedlung von Emporio auf Chios war befestigt (Hood 1981, 91-111; 130-133). Ob dies auch für Kastro Tigani zutraf, ist leider nicht mehr feststellbar (Felsch 1988, 40). Doch auch auf Chios gab es bewohnte Höhlen wie die von Agio Gala (Hood 1981,13).

Das aus den Sondierungen der Malkayası-Höhle stammende Keramikmaterial, das mit dem der Fundstellen am Südhang des Gebirges weitgehend übereinstimmt, lässt sich aufgrund direkter Vergleiche zu Kastro Tigani auf Samos, Agio Gala (obere Höhle) und Emporio auf Chios einem Zeithorizont zuweisen, der nach der ägäischen Chronologie das späte Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum (spätes 6. bis 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr.) umfasst (Hauptmann1986, 19-30; Gerber 2003, 205). Vor allem zu der Siedlungsphase III von Kastro Tigani bestehen sehr enge Beziehungen, wie das Vorkommen der für Samos charakteristischen Knaufrippenschalen (Abb. 17.18a-b), ein zoomorpher Henkelknauf (Abb. 17.19a-b) und eine Halsamphora (Abb. 17.20a-b) zeigen (Felsch 1988, 51 Kat.Nr. 256 Taf. 27,4; Kat. Nr. 305 Taf. 34, 1-2; Kat. Nr. 270 Taf. 30,2. 63). Die in großer Zahl im Latmos auftretenden Backplatten mit Innenschälchen (Gerber 2003 a, 207 Abb. 5 a-b) stellen hingegen eine in der Ägäis weit verbreitete Gefäßform dar (Felsch 1988, 109-111, 136 f.). Im Unterschied zu den bisher bekannten Stücken sind bei den Exemplaren aus dem Latmos drei dieser Schälchen mit einer Schlange verziert.

Lebensgrundlagen der latmischen Bevölkerung war in erster Linie der Ackerbau; dafür stand die breite fruchtbare Ebene am Ostufer des ehemaligen Golfes, die von den Wohnplätzen nicht weit entfernt war und die, wie bereits bemerkt, im Chalkolithikum sehr viel größer war als heute, zur Verfügung. Das für Ackerbau nicht geeignete felsige und teilweise schwer zugängliche gebirgige Gelände diente der Jagd und der Weidewirtschaft, vermutlich auch dem Honigsammeln, das nahe gelegene Meer dem Fischfang. Im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. siedelte die Bevölkerung vermutlich in der Ebene. Ein Siedlungsplatz ist bereits bekannt, der oben erwähnte Belentepesi am Südufer des Sees. Weitere liegen heute möglicherweise wegen des angestiegenen Seespiegels unter Wasser.

Die Übereinstimmung der Keramik des Latmos, vor allem mit der von Kastro Tigani schließen den Latmos und die Insel Samos innerhalb des südostägäischen

290

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR. Bibliographie Akdeniz E. 2011. Some evidence on the first known residents of Katakekaumene (Burned Lands), in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 1, Athen.

Müllenhoff, M. 2005. Geoarchäologische, sedimentologische und morphodynamische Untersuchungen im Mündungsgebiet des Büyük Menderes (Mäander), Westtürkei, Marburg.

Brinkmann R. 1971. Das kristalline Grundgebirge in Anatolien. Geol. Rundschau, Stuttgart.

Peschlow, U. 1993. Latmos, in: Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst V s.v. Latmos, Stuttgart.

Clottes J.- Lewis-Williams 2001. Les chamanes de la préhistoire, Paris.

———. 1996. Die Latmosregion in byzantinischer Zeit, in A. Peschlow-Bindokat, Der Latmos. Eine unbekannte Gebirgslandschaft an der türkischen Westküste, Mainz.

Felsch, R. 1988. Das Kastro Tigani. Die spätneolithische und chalkolithische Siedlung. Samos II, Bonn.

———. 2005. Die Latmos-Region in Byzantinischer Zeit, in A. Peschlow-Bindokat, Eine karische Gebirgslandschaft. Herakleia am Latmos. Stadt und Umgebung, Istanbul.

Gerber, Chr. 2003a. Die Malkayası-Höhle, in: A. Peschlow - Chr. Gerber, Die Arbeiten des Jahres 2002 in Herakleia am Latmos und Umgebung. 21. AST Vol. 2, Ankara.

Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 1996. Der Kult des anatolischen Regen- und Wettergottes auf dem Gipfel des Latmos und das Heiligtum des Zeus Akraios im Tal von Dikilitaş. IstMitt 46, 1996, Tübingen.

———. 2003b. Der Fundplatz Malkayası, in: A. Peschlow-Bindokat, Frühe Menschenbilder 84 Abb. 81 ad, Mainz.

———.2003. Frühe Menschenbilder. Die prähistorischen Felsmalereien des Latmos-Gebirges (Westtürkei), Mainz.

Germann, K. 1981. Lagerstätteneigenschaften und herkunftstypische Merkmalsmuster von Marmoren am Südwestrand des Menderes-Massivs (Südwestanatolien), in A. Peschlow-Bindokat, Die Steinbrüche von Milet und Herakleia am Latmos. JdI 96, 1981, Berlin.

———. 2005. Feldforschungen im Latmos.Die karische Stadt Latmos. Milet III 6, Berlin. ———. 2006. Tarihöncesi İnsan Resimleri. Latmos Dağları'ndaki prehistorik Kaya Resimleri, Istanbul.

Haas, A. 1982. Hethitische Berggötter und hurritische Steindämonen, Mainz.

———. 2009. The gods of the Latmos: Cults and Rituals at the Holy Mountain from Prehistoric to Byzantine times, in Sacred Landscapes in Anatolia and Neighboring Regions, ed. by Ch. Gates, J. Morin, Th. Zimmermann. (BAR International Series 2034), Oxford.

Hauptmann, H. 1986. Probleme des Chalkolithikums in Griechenland. Abéri Balogh Ádam Múzeum Eykönyvé 13, Szekzkar. Hood, S. 1981. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Excavations in Chios 1938-1955 Vol. I. (BSA Suppl. No. 15), London.

———. 2012. The Latmos-Beşparmak Mountains. Sites with early rock paintings in Western Anatolia, in Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations & New Research Vol. 4. Western Turkey, ed. by M. Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen, Peter Kuniholm, Istanbul.

Korkut, T. 2011. Tlos, in: Aktüel Arkeoloji Dergisi, Istanbul.

Philippson, A. 1936. Das Südliche Ionien, in Milet III 5, Berlin.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1973. Prähistorische Kunst. Die Ursprünge der Kunst in Europa (Große Epochen der Weltkunst. Ars Antiqua, Band 1), Freiburg.

Türkcan, A. U. 2005. Anadolun'un İlk At Figürleri, in Atlas Kasım 2005, Istanbul.

Mellaart, J. 1967. Catal Hüyük. A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London. 1970. Excavations at Hacılar 1.2, Edinburgh.

Vialon D. 1992. Frühzeit des Menschen (Universum der Kunst, Band 37), München.

Merkelbach R. - Stauber J. 1998. Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten I. Die Westküste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion, Berlin.

Wiegand, Th. 1913. Der Latmos, in Milet III 1, Berlin.

291

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT

 

Abbildungen 17.1. Blick auf den See und das Gebirge vom Südufer des Sees.

a.

b.

c. Abbildungen 17. 2a.c. Kovanalan, Höhle. a. von außen, b. Inneres, c. Nische mit Felsbild.

292

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR.

Abbildungen Schildkröte.

17.3.

Verwitterungsformen

des

Latmos:

Abbildungen 17.5. Die Bergspitze, Thron des Wettergottes.

.

Abbildungen 17.4. Karte des Küstenverlaufs im Chalkolithikum (nach Brückner).

293

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT

Abbildungen 17.6. Verbreitungskarte der Felsbilder und der prähistorischen Fundstellen.

294

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR.

b. a.

c. Abbildungen 17.7a-c. Balıktaş, ’Felskammer’. a. Blick von Süden, b. Grundriß (Zeichnung S. Grabowski), c. Schnitt (Zeichnung S. Grabowski).

295

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT

b.

 

a. Abbildungen 17.8a-b. Balıktaş, Deckenbild. a. Gesamtansicht, b. Bilder der südlichen Deckenhälfte mit ’Familienszenen’.

296

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR.

a

b

c. Abbildungen 17.9a-c. Ikizada. a. Luftbild der Region, die roten Ziffern bezeichnen die Felsbildfund stellen (Foto D. Gansera), b. Blick in die Versturzhöhle, c. Plan der Höhle (Zeichnung S. Grabowski). c.

297

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT

a.

a.

b.

b.

Abbildungen 17.10a-b. Ikizada, Höhle. a. Deckenbild (farbverstärkt), b. Kopie des Deckenbildes (Zeichnung S. Grabowski).

c. Abbildungen 17.11a-c. Göktepebezirk. a. Blick von Westen (der rote Pfeil bezeichnet den Eingang, das rote Kreuz die Lage des Felsbildes), b. Felsbild, c. Ausschnitt des Felsbildes mit Darstellung eines Paares von Mann und Frau.

298

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR.

a.

b.

Abbildungen 17.13. Karadere-Höhle, Inneres.

Abbildungen 17.12a-b. Karadere-Höhle. a. Luftbild des Bezirkes (Bezirkes (das rote Kreuz bezeichnet die Höhle, der rote Pfeil den Eingang / Foto D. Gansera), b. Blick auf den Höhleneingang.

299

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT

b.

a.

Abbildungen 17.14a-b. Tal der Christus-Höhle. a. Blick auf das Tal von Süden, b. Plan des Tales.

300

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR.

a.

c.

b.

d. Abbildungen 17.15 a-d. Christus-Höhle. a. Ansicht von Westen (Zeichnung S. Grabowski), b. Blick in die nördliche Hälfte der Höhle, c-d. Miniaturgefäß aus der Nordostecke der Höhle (d. Zeichnung S. Grabowski).

301

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT

a.

c.

b. Abbildungen 17. 16a-c. Tal der Christus-Höhle, 'Wohnhöhle' (Nr. 5 auf Plan Abb. 14 b). a. Inneres, b. Eingang (Zeichnung S. Grabowski), c. Grundriss (Zeichnung S. Grabowski).

302

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR.

b.

a.

Abbildungen 17.17a-b. Tal der Christus-Höhle. Funde aus einer Felsspalte. a. Miniaturbecher (Zeichnung S. Grabowski), b. zoomorphes Gefäß bzw. Tierfigur (Zeichnung S. Grabowski).

b.

a.

Abbildungen 17. 18a-b. Schalenfragment mit Knaufrippe aus dem Tal der Christus-Höhle (b. Zeichnung S. Grabowski).

303

ANNELIESE PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT

a.

a.

b. Abbildungen 17.19a-b. Tal der Christus-Höhle. Als Tierkopf gestaltete Knubbe eines Henkels (b. (Zeichnung S. Grabowski).

b. Abbildungen 17. 20a-b. Halsamphora vom Felshang westlich des Tales der Christus-Höhle (b. Zeichnung S. Grabowski).

304

DAS GEBIRGE ALS LEBENSRAUM ZUR KULTISCHEN BEDEUTUNG UND PROFANEN NUTZUNG DER HÖHLEN UND ÜBERHÄNGE DES LATMOS IM 6. UND 5. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR.

a.

b. Abbildungen 17.21a-b. Funde vom Felshang westlich des Tales der Christus-Höhle. a.Tonfigur eines Bären, b. Halsamphorenfragment mit männlicher Figur mit Hörnern auf dem Kopf.

305

ALEXANDRA ZAMPITI 104.1571, pl. 105.1577; Pipili 1993, 66, pl. 61.6-7; Grammenos and Tiverios 1984, 12-13, pl. 4.e.) and several pieces of black figured and white ground lekythoi decorated with palmettes, linear motifs or figures (Fig. 18.3). Some of the white ground lekythoi are probably attributed to the Beldam Painter Workshop (Haspels 1936, 178-179, pl. 53.1; Kurtz 1975, 18-20, pl. 70). Of the same chronology but fewer are the pieces of the black figured skyphoi of Hermogenean shape (Knigge 1976, 183, pl. 93.1; Blegen, Palmer and Young 1964, 153, 247, pl. 50.333.6 and pl. 55.346.5). On one of them the letters ALEX are incised, probably part of a votive inscription, the only one found in the whole material (Fig. 18.4e). There have been found, also in small quantities, pieces of powder and type B pyxides (Fig. 18.4a-c) (for powder pyxides see Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 175, pl. 43.12941297 and for a similar type B pyxis, see Knigge 2005, 134, pl. 66.185) and of thurible lids (Fig. 18.4d) while there are only two or three fragments of black figured oinochoai with depictions of female figures (Fig. 18.5) and of mesomphalos phialai decorated in Six technique (Fig. 18.6) (Fritzilas 2006, 86-97, pls. 46, 47). Most of the black glazed sherds of this period belong to kotylai of various sizes (Blegen, Palmer and Young 1964, 153-154; Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 81-83, 256-258, pls. 14, 15) and to type C cups with a concave lip (Blegen, Palmer and Young 1964, 160; Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 91-92, 263-264, pl. 19; Kanowski 1984, 78, nos. 11, 83). Some fragments of the kotylai may date to the late 6th century B.C.

18 Schisto Cave At Keratsini (Attika): The Pottery From Classical Through Roman Times Alexandra Zampiti Introduction* Pottery of the Historical times constitutes the largest category among the finds, which have come to light during the rescue excavation in the summer of 2000 at the Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini (see Spathi and Hatzilazarou 2008; for the research conducted after 2006, see Mavridis and Kormazopoulou 2007-2008; Mavridis et al. this volume) Not only the quantity and the variety of the specimens are worth mentioning but also the quality of most of them. All finds were gathered at a specific spot, the so-called apothetis (votive deposit), which consists of a small space situated at the rear of the cave, formed at a deeper level than the surface of the rest of the cave and covered by a big rock fell from above. The archaeological investigation of that year focused only on this place, where traces of illegal digging were found. Unfortunately, due to this external intervention there is a lack of any stratigraphical data, which would otherwise help us to reconstruct a precise and complete picture of the function of the cave as a cult place through time. The fragmentary state of the material often forces us to speculations about the shapes and themes depicted. Most excavated material dates to the fifth century and the number of finds decreases when going down to the first century B.C. Indications for a later use of the place are represented by two moldmade lamp pieces dated in the 4 th century A.D. (see also the contribution of Kormazopoulou in Mavridis et al. in this volume). A big variety of shapes are represented, almost entirely attributed to Attic workshops apart from a few Corinthian sherds of the late 6 th 5th century B.C. (Fig. 18.1). Only selected pieces of the whole material will be briefly presented due to the large amount and variety of the fragments.

The plentiful red figured pottery and part of the black glazed one date to the second half of the 5 th century B.C. A very characteristic group is that of the red figured loutrophoroi (Fig. 18.7) and lebetes gamikoi (Fig. 18.8) decorated with wedding scenes, which are customary for these types of vases. Women and winged female figures, presumably Nikai, holding either an alabastron or small chests and scarves approach a bride and bear gifts to her. Parts of similar scenes are also shown on some red figured sherds of unidentified vases with depictions of similar female and male figures, interpreted as Nikai and Erotes (Dugas 1952, pls. 10.22A, 10. 22B and 31.78; Moore 1997, pls. 17.101, 17.105) and of a maiden seated on a klismos near a kalathos (Fig. 18.9 on top) (for similar scenes on hydriae, see Romaios 1929, 202; Dugas 1952, pl. 31.75). A few sherds of contemporary red figured lekythoi belong to the same category of decoration themes (Fig. 18.9). On one of them a Nike holding a torch approaches a woman seated on a klismos (Fig. 18.9 at the bottom). Two more single pieces of red figure vases could also be associated with representations that belong to the women’s world. The first is a rim of a bell krater with the depiction of a woman approaching a loutrophoros-amphora and the second, probably from a high stemmed kantharos, shows two women, one holding a torch and the other probably a mirror facing each other over a rectangular altar or some kind of cubic stool (Fig. 18.10) (for the interpretation of such an object, see Avronidaki 2007, 138-139).

Pottery Of The Late Archaic And Classical Times The most distinctive and large category of vases is that of krateriskoi (Fig. 18.2)., a very particular vessel type which will be extensively discussed below They belong to the earliest vessels in our material, dated in the first half of the 5th century B.C. Contemporary with them are many miniature white ground skyphoi of the Lindos group (Moore and Philippides 1986, 288-289, pl.

*

I would like to express my gratitude to professors Michalis Tiverios and Ismene Trianti and Dr.Victoria Sabetai for their valuable advice after reviewing this paper and to the archaeologist and good friend Dr.Eleni Mitsopoulou for her remarks on cult issues. I also want to thank the archaeologists Dr.Katerina Volioti and Lina Kormazopoulou for their helpful hints.

306

SCHISTO CAVE AT KERATSINI (ATTIKA): THE POTTERY FROM CLASSICAL THROUGH ROMAN TIMES A remarkable find is a red figured sherd of unique quality drawing, probably from a chous dated in the last decade of the 5th century B.C. Two lightly armed ephebes are depicted, one following the other, probably marching in a procession (Fig. 18.11). Details on their helmets are rendered with a relief line while applied gold is preserved on one of them. Unfortunately the fragment is too small to permit secure further interpretation of the scene depicted but the careful drawing resembles a work of a master hand.

18.21b). Among the rest of the sherds of this period worth mentioning are one base of an unguentarium, very few sherds of rilled rim plates (Rotroff 1997, 151-152, pl. 67) and one side pouring lekythos (Fig. 18.19b). The unguentarium and the lekythos should be probably dated in the 2nd century B.C., while the plates in the late 4thearly 3rd century B.C. The shape of the lekythos finds parallels in Thompson’s Group E (Thompson 1934, 417, E 1333, fig. 103). There are also some sherds of red glazed relief bowls (Fig. 18.22) and a red glazed miniature lidded lekanis (Fig. 18.23). The last may belong to the terra sigillata category.

The black glazed pottery of the second half of the 5 th century B.C. is represented with various familiar shapes. A small percentage of the fragments belong to squat lekythoi either with a reserved decorative zone on the body or with ribbed decoration. The rest of the fragments are attributed to shapes, which appear once within the excavated material, like a saltcellar, two pieces of a pyxis of type D, a Rhenia type cup (Fig. 18.12) (Sparkes and Talcott 1970, pl. 21.455; Kaltsas 1998, pl. 101). There are few pieces of vases with stamped designs either in the interior or all over the body. In this group belong an Acrocup (Figs. 18.13, 18.14) (Bloesch 1940, 141-144, pl. 39:4a; Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 92-95, pl. 20.440, for the stamped decoration, see Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 29), a cup-skyphos and two sherds of a miniature pointed amphoriskos (Fig. 18.15) (for several amphoriskoi of this kind, see Kapetanaki 1973, 150-157).

Coarse Ware And Lamps Apart from the fine ware pottery and especially the decorated vases, which constituted votive offerings, several fragments of coarse ware were also found. Transport amphorae (Fig. 18.24), small one handle skyphoi, chytrai, lopades and other cooking ware of unknown shapes had probably a utilitarian function and were used to cover the needs of the visitors of this cult place (Fig. 18.25). The few lamps, which were found, cover a big chronological range, though not continuous. On the analogy of the rest of the pottery many black glazed fragments belong to the 5th century B.C. (Fig. 18.26) (Scheibler 1976, 23-24, pls. 13-15; Pingiatoglou 2005, 24-28, pls. 1-11), while only few pieces can be dated in the Early Roman times (second half of the 2nd to first half of the 1st century B.C.) (Fig. 18.27) (for the relief lamps, see Howland 1958, 161, pl. 48.635-48.636 and for the plain one, see Scheibler 1976, 55-56, pl. 53.308; Howland 1958, 109-110, pl. 43.467-43.471). The discovery of the two 4th century A.D. lamp pieces was already mentioned above (Fig. 18.28) (Slane 1990, 34, pl. 5.54; Böttger 2002, 196, pl. 43.2457 and 251, pl. 64.3848, see also Kormazopoulou in Mavridis et al. in this volume).

In the 4th century B.C. the number of finds and the variety of shapes diminish compared to that of the previous century. The only vessels, which form a quite plentiful group are the black glazed miniature skyphoi-krateriskoi, frequently found at many places (Fig. 18.16a) (Knigge 2005, 146, pl. 81). There are also two fragments of black glazed kantharoi, the one with stamped motifs of roulleting and palmettes in its interior (Figs. 18.16b, 18.17), and some other fragments of unknown shapes. A special category of vases that is generally scarcely found is kalathos shape vessels. They probably also date to the 4th century B.C. (Fig. 18.18). Their decoration imitates real kalathoi made of reeds and canes with motifs of cross hatching on the body and white ivy garland and dot rosettes on the black glazed rim. So far I have not been able to locate examples of such kalathoi with this particular decoration elsewhere (for kalathoi in general, see Kanowski 1984, 44-46).

Interpretation And Aspects Of Cult Use Among the different types of vases, many of them found usually in cult contexts, stand out vases strongly connected to the women’s world. Especially loutrophoroi and lebetes gamikoi are vases, which pertain to a female deity cult. They were usually dedicated by young girls, ready to become brides to Nymphs and Artemis, who were considered as deities of marriage. Such vases are frequently found at places where Nymphs were worshipped (Hartwig 1897, 138; King 1903, 323-324; Romaios 1906, 104-105; Travlos 1971, 361; Kahil 1979, 85; 1983, 243; Palaiokrassa 1991, 73, 94; Sgourou 1994; MöschKlingele 2006).

Hellenistic Pottery Pottery of the Hellenistic period is represented with limited number of vases. There are quite several but small fragments of the well known relief bowls, the so-called “Megarian” with the “long petal” type decoration (Rotroff 1982, 34-37; 1988, 87-93) and a few pieces of buggy kantharoi decorated with west slope decoration, which comprises panels of alternating checkerboards and concentric rectangles or lattice below the rim (Fig. 18.19a) (Rotroff 1997, 103-105, pls. 22.233, 22.238, 24.253-24.256). West slope decoration appears also on one oinochoe (Fig. 18.20), which resembles Rotroff’s Large Leaf Group 1 (Rotroff 1991, 88-89, pl. 38.90), on a pyxis lid and on the rim of a relief bowl (Figs. 18.21a,

The crucial element that strengthens the connection specifically with Artemis is the krateriskoi, numerous fragments of which had been found in this particular context. These are vases of specific shape found only in Attic sanctuaries of Artemis. They have been found in abundance at Brauron (Kahil 1963, 13-14, 27-29, pl. 6.1, 6.2; 1965, 20-33, pls. 7, 8, 9.2-5, 9.7; 1977, 86-98, pls. 1821.1; 1981, 253-263, pl. 62) and several of them at

307

ALEXANDRA ZAMPITI Mounichia (Piraeus) (Palaiokrassa 1991, 74-82, 147-162, pls. 37-44). Meanwhile a few fragments come from the sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule at the Athenian Agora (Threpsiades and Vanderpool 1964, 33-36, pl. 21.421.10), the sanctuary of Artemis Tauropolos at Halai Araphenides (Kahil 1977, 88, 96; 1981, 254), the Brauroneion on the Akropolis (Kahil 1981), the Athenian Agora (Kahil 1965, 23, pl. 9.11) and the Caves of Pan and Nymphs at Eleusis, Parnes, Daphni, Vari and Marathon (Oinoe II) (Travlos 1960, 55, pl. 43a; Arapogianni 2000, 49, 77, 119, 143-144, 158-159, figs. 67, 120, 270271, 381-382, 423-424). They are considered to be special vessels related to the arkteia, a ritual, which was a crucial part of the two famous goddess’s festivals, the Brauroneia [Lloyd-Jones 1983, 91-95; Kahil 1983, 231244; Perlman 1983, 130; Simon 1983, 83-88; Osborne 1985, 154-157; Bevan 1987, 17-21; Sourvinou-Inwood 1988; Hamilton 1989, 449-450, 458-470; SourvinouInwood 1990 (which is a response to Hamilton’s arguments); Faraone 2003, 46-49] and the Mounichia (Parke 1977, 137-145; Simon 1983, 81-82, for both festivals, see Mommsen 1898, 452-464; Deubner 1932, 205-208, see also Antoniou 1990, 179-205; Palaiokrassa 1991, 34-41, 90-96 with a compilation of arguments of many scholars about arkeia). According to the literary testimonia arkteia was performed at these two sanctuaries (Palaiokrassa 1991, 30-32).

Despite the short term production of krateriskoi and though their shape and decoration are repetitious, variations can be observed. As for the shape the specific group contains fragments so much with chalice form as with bell form body and their lip is either plain or plastic. The foot varies from low to very high. Palaiokrassa (1991, 7576) points out some slight transformations, which might constitute some kind of evolution in shape but as she already mentions such remarks are risky because of the fragmentary condition of the finds. Almost all pieces are decorated with dark parallel bands on the foot and inside the body and most of them with a wavy or zigzag white line on the lip. The main decoration themes, applied in a freeze on the body, can be divided in the following iconographical categories (Fig. 18.29) 1. Linear or floral decoration, which comprises of a zigzag line, a branch with leaves or a snake 2. Outdoor scenes with a palm tree, a deer, an altar or rarely a combination of them 3. Special themes, which appear only once, like a sphinx or a libation scene at the center flanked by two women, one playing a double flute and the other holding a basket (kanoun) 4. Depictions of girls running, dancing or marching in a procession, dressed in various ways or naked, and sometimes holding torches or wreaths (for interpretations of the types of the girls attire and an attempt to connect them to specific stages of the ritual, see Rühfel 1984, 100-107; Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 119-126). They are several times depicted near an altar on which a fire burns and in one occasion near a column.

The shapes of these krateriskoi are the same as those of the already published from the other sanctuaries and present similar cursory drawing in black figure style and low quality manufacture. All specimens seem to have been made of the same reddish yellow clay apart from very few pieces, whose clay color is light brown. The fact that there were two different sources of clay supply probably means the occupation of different workshops for the production of the krateriskoi found here. Kahil (1965, 25; 1981, 254) believes that these vessels were products of local workshops and not of well known Athenian potters and many scholars adopt the idea of local workshops working separately for each sanctuary. If this is true then the possibility of attributing the krateriskoi fragments found in the cave and those of Mounichia to the same workshops should be seriously examined. The proximity of the two places and the similar color of the clays reinforce this possibility. The form of the krateriskoi, a goblet with double handles and conical foot (Kahil 1965, 20; 1981, 253; Palaiokrassa 1991, 74-76) resembles similar Archaic shapes, such as that of the chalice (Pipili 2001, fig. 50) or of the Nikosthenic pyxis. According to the data given from all the places where krateriskoi have been discovered, the production of this kind of vessel seems to cover the first half of the 5 th century B.C. and does not seem to extend beyond the middle of the century. Of course, one should exclude the three red figure fragments published by Kahil (1977, 86-98), dated to 440-420 B.C. Furthermore it should be noted that Palaiokrassa (1991, 80-81) speculates that the production of krateriskoi may lasted until the 4th century B.C. butshe points out that a supposition of that kind is not based on accurate stratigraphic evidence.

The majority of the fragments belong to the last category, which is the typical one for this kind of vessels. The drawings, applied directly upon the clay, are either in black figure style using white to denote female flesh, details on clothes and specific decorative elements on altars, or are painted exclusively in white with details in black, violet or yellowish brown. Black is used for the hair and some objects (like the stool on which the double flute player sits at the libation scene), violet (though extremely faded now) for the flames on altars, and yellowish brown for the folds of the clothes. Incision is absent from all the fragments. These scenes are the reason why krateriskoi are connected with the arkteia. The only contemporary to the krateriskoi literary sources, which refer to arkteia are Aristophanes (Lysistrata, 644-645) and Lysias in a lost speech. Lilly Kahil was the first to suggest, and afterwards many scholars accepted her ideas, that the girls, depicted so frequently on vessels of this kind, represent the little arktoi (“she-bears”), young Athenian girls who had to devote themselves to Artemis for a period of time before reaching womanhood. Arkteia was a rite of passage from childhood to maturation, which was consummated during the Brauroneia and the Mounichia with ritual ceremonies. It was in fact an initiation rite to prepare the girls to become eligible wives and women with proper behavior. Some scholars are against Kahil’s theory stat-

308

SCHISTO CAVE AT KERATSINI (ATTIKA): THE POTTERY FROM CLASSICAL THROUGH ROMAN TIMES ing that any kind of ritual activity pertained to Artemis’ cult could be depicted on these vessels as far as no specific indication leads us strictly to arkteia (Hamilton 1989; Faraone 2003, 44-50). Especially Faraone (2003, 44-50) thinks that choruses of children must not necessarily be interpreted as initiation rites.

fragments can be attributed to approximately 35-40 vessels. It appears to be the third largest published group of krateriskoi after those of Brauron and Mounichia. As far as I know the krateriskoi found in the Caves of Pan and Nymphs at Eleusis, Parnes, Daphni, Vari and Marathon are only two or three at each site and are decorated with linear motifs (Travlos 1960, pl. 43.a; Arapogianni 2000, figs. 67, 120, 270-271, 381-382, 423-424). Their small number and neutral decoration do not justify a connection specifically with arkteia but only with Artemis in general. Literary sources mention only the Artemis’ sanctuaries of Brauron and Mounichia when they refer to arkteia. Some scholars suggest that in view of the propagation of the goddess’s cult after the Persian Wars arkteia would have been performed at all places where krateriskoi have been discovered (Simon 1983, 86, for Artemis’ importance in Athenian cult, see Kahil 1979, 84-85; 1981, 262; Osborne 1985, 156; Shapiro 1989, 64-66). Others believe that these vessels should be considered as dedications only to commemorate the arkteia and they do not necessarily mean that the ceremony was performed (SourvinouInwood 1988, 116-117; Hamilton 1989, 470).

Much has been written about arguing whether girls do perform the arkteia or not since they do not actually imitate bears and the krokotos mentioned in Aristophanes text cannot be surely identified with any of the dresses depicted. I will not argue for or against as this is not the subject of this paper (for an analysis about these matters, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 121-134; 1990, 1-14; Hamilton 1989, 460-463; Faraone 2003, 45-46). The connection of krateriskoi with arkteia is confirmed in the present material since prepubescent girls are shown apparently participating in ritual acts within a sacred environment pertained to Artemis as palm trees and deers in combination with altars denote. According to Calame (2010, 259261), a palm tree hides a further symbolism, which is connected with the essence of this initiation rite. Based on the fact that this tree is closely connected with the birth of Apollon on Dilos and is also found in representations of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia. Calame notes that: “The symbolic significance of the palm tree had no doubt less to do with the loss of virginity or the notion of fertility in its widest sense than with the capacity for procreation that meant that girls were now of marriageable age”. Even figures like snakes and a sphinx depicted on some fragments are not irrelevant to the goddess’s realm (Bevan 1986, 263-265, 268-273, 293-297, 302-303) and their symbolism probably fits in some way to the general concept of arkteia. Arkteia is a maturation rite, which dictates the segregation of the girl from her family and community. That is why Burkert (1983, 62-3 and n. 20) perceive this service to the goddess as a kind of a temporary sacrifice and thus ritual death of the girls bearing in mind the legend, which was the aition of this rite. The concept of death and rebirth, which this procedure implies, recalls the contradictory image of the snake as symbol of life and death and of the sphinx as symbol of fear and death, who also expresses the daemonic powers of nature, a space dominated by Artemis (Bevan 1986, 270-272, 296).

Either arkteia was performed within the environment of the cave or not the predominance of krateriskoi as a group over the rest of the vases makes me not only consider Artemis’ cult in the cave certain but also believe that she holds the most important place in the cult next to Nymphs and Pan, who were also worshipped in it as basically the other finds and especially the figurines suggest. This is not surprising considering the close connection between these deities (Larson 2001, 109-110). Besides, the worship of Artemis as the predominant deity has been traced in other caves as well, such as in “The Fountain of the Virgin” in Meskla of western Crete, where Artemis and Nymphs were worshipped together, in the well known Cave in Antiparos (Papamanoli-Guest 2002, 530, 534), in a cave situated in Dalmatia (Wernicke 1895, 1336), in the so called Bear-Cave in Hania in Crete (Sporn 2002, 275-277) and in a cave on the north side of Mount Olympos, which was once a sanctuary of the Virgin Artemis of the Limnai and nowadays is sacred to the Virgin Mother of God (Ramsay 1907, 293). The co-existence of these deities with Artemis would not be considered odd keeping in mind the close connection between them. Nymphs are her keen companions and the Arcadian Pan’s sphere of action intersects with Artemis’ area of hunting. Multiple connections of Pan and Artemis can be found in literary sources and myths (Borgeaud 1988, 47-49, 55-57, 75-77, 80-81, 156-158). A further link of Pan especially with Artemis Mounichia appears through their correlation with the victories of the Athenians at Salamis and Marathon in Attika and their parallel contribution to the predominance of the Democrats over the Thirty Tyrants at Piraeus (Palaiokrassa 1991, 35-38; Borgeaud 1988, 156-158; Deubner 1932, 204-205). A representation of such kind of relationship between the two deities can be maybe exemplified on a red figured skyphos from the Laon Museum, where Pan is offering probably a cake crowned with small torches (amphiphon) to the goddess (Borgeaud 1988, fig. 9).

The conservative Archaic shape of the krateriskoi and their typical decoration attribute a ritual character to this vessel (Kahil 1977, 88; 1979, 80). They seem to have been offered to Artemis by the girls devoted to her during their arkteia (Sourvinou-Inwood 1990, 12; Palaiokrassa 1991, 79-80). The exact use of these ritual vessels remains actually unknown. The fact that some of those found at Brauron and at Mounichia preserve traces of burning inside led to the suggestion that they may have been used as thuribles (Kahil 1965, 24-25; Palaiokrassa 1991, 80). Though, none of the pieces found in the Anonymous Cave of Schisto has similar traces of burning. The really surprising element in the instance of the specific material is the discovery of this large amount of krateriskoi in a cave. According to my estimations, the

309

ALEXANDRA ZAMPITI

If we assume that this place, so difficult to access, was an apothetis (votive deposit) that means that it would serve as a place where either waste material has been thrown away or was moved intentionally sometime after a clean sweep of the whole surface of the rest of the cave took place. This presupposes a different formation of the place at that time, meaning that the rock that covered this part of the cave fell after all its function as an apothetis.

Conclusions The pottery found in the Anonymous Cave of Schisto at Keratsini presents in general many similarities with the one found in the sanctuary of Artemis Mounichia in Piraeus. This resemblance and the proximity of the two cult places may imply some kind of special connection between them. Therefore, for the time being, only assumptions can be put forward since the information extracted from the study of the finds so far does not give us a clear picture not only about the pottery but also about the use of the place in the Historical times.

All these interpreting problems are directly connected with matters of cult practices in the cave, which seem to be much complicated as well. The absence of any literary sources about this cave and of any kind of inscriptions that would provide us with some information about the cult practices of the deities worshipped in it alongside with the lack of stratification and the fragmentary condition of the finds, especially of the pottery, makes the investigation even more difficult and multiplies the suppositions concerning the use of the place. In addition, general knowledge about cult practices that took place in caves is restricted. Which parts and what kind of rituals were exercised inside and outside the caves are questions still waiting to be answered.

Further investigations of the cave in the following years have not contributed much to the research. During the campaign that followed the rescue research of 2000 and it is still ongoing, a large part of the first level surface at the rear of the cave, nearby the already excavated area situated at a deeper level (apothetis), was excavated by Fanis Mavridis and Lina Kormazopoulou. Only few sherds dated in Historical times were discovered. The fact that almost the entire amount of pottery fragments of the Historical times was found exclusively in the small area at the deeper level is even more puzzling and thus lots of questions arise.

310

SCHISTO CAVE AT KERATSINI (ATTIKA): THE POTTERY FROM CLASSICAL THROUGH ROMAN TIMES Hamilton, R. 1989. “Alkman and the Athenian Arkteia,” Hesperia 58, pp. 449-472.

Bibliography Antoniou, A. 1990. Bραυρών. Συμβολή στην Ιστορία του Ιερού της Βραυρωνίας Αρτέμιδος, Athens.

Hartwig, P. 1897. “Επίνητρον εξ Ερετρίας,” ArchEph, pp. 129-142.

Arapogianni, X. 2000. Τα Σπήλαια του Πανός στην Αττική. Ph.D. diss., University of Thessaloniki.

Haspels, C.H.E. 1936. Attic Black-figured Lekythoi, Paris.

Avronidaki, C. 2007. Ο Ζωγράφος του Άργου. Συμβολή στην Έρευνα της Βοιωτικής Ερυθρόμορφης Κεραμικής στο β΄ μισό του 5ου αι. π.Χ., Athens.

Howland, R.H. 1958. Greek Lamps and Their Survivals, (Agora 4), Princeton, New Jersey. Kahil, L. 1963. “Quelques Vases du Sanctuaire d’Artémis à Brauron,” AntK-BH 1, pp. 5-29.

Bevan, E. 1986. Representations of Animals in Sanctuaries of Artemis and Other Olympian Deities, (BAR-IS 315), Oxford.

Kahil, L. 1965. “Autour de l’Artémis attique,” AntK 8, pp. 20-33.

______.1987. “The Goddess Artemis, and the Dedication of Bears in Sanctuaries,” BSA 82, pp. 17-21.

Kahil, L. 1977. “L’Artémis de Brauron: Rites et Mystère,” AntK 20, pp. 86-98.

Blegen, C.W., H. Palmer and R.S. Young. 1964. The North Cemetery, (Corinth 13), Princeton, New Jersey.

Kahil, L. 1979. “La Déesse Artémis: Mythologie et Iconographie,” in Greece and Italy in the Classical World (Acta of the XI International Congress of Classical Archaeology, London, 3-9 September 1978), Coldstream, J.N and M.A.R. Colledge, eds., London, pp. 73-87.

Bloesch, H. 1940. Formen attischer Schalen von Exekias bis zum Ende des strengen Stils, Bern. Borgeaud, Ph. 1988. The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece, (tranlated by K. Atlass and J. Redfield), Chicago and London.

Kahil, L. 1981. “Le ‘Cratérisque’ d’Artémis et le Brauroneion de l’Acropole,” Hesperia 50, pp. 253-263.

Böttger, B. 2002. Keramikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Die Kaiserzeitlichen Lampen vom Keramikos, (Keramikos 16)), Munich.

Kahil, L.1983. “Mythological Repertoire of Brauron,” in Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, (Wisconsin Studies in Classics), W.G. Moon, ed., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 231-243.

Burkert, W. 1983. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, (translated by Peter Bing), Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.

Kaltsas, N.E. 1998. Άκανθος Ι. Η ανασκαφή στο νεκροταφείο κατά το 1979, Athens.

Calame, C. 2010. “Identities of Gods and Heroes: Athenian Garden Sanctuaries and Gendered Rites of Passage,” in The Gods of Ancient Greece. Identities and Transformations, Bremmer, J.N. and A.Erskine, eds., Edinburgh, pp. 245-269.

Kanowski, M.G. 1984. Containers of Classical Greece: A Handbook of Shapes, St. Lucia.

Deubner, L. 1932. Attische Feste, Berlin.

King, L.S. 1903. “The Cave at Vari (IV). Vases, TerraCotta Statuettes, Bronzes, and Miscellaneous Objects,” AJA 7, pp. 320-334.

Kapetanaki, P. 1973. “Μελαμβαφείς Αμφορίσκοι εξ Αθηνών,” AAA 6, pp. 150-157.

Dugas, C. 1952. Les Vases Attiques à Figures Rouges, (Délos 21), Paris.

Knigge, U. 1976. Der Südhügel, (Kerameikos 9), Berlin. Faraone, C.A. 2003. “'Playing the Bear and Fawn for Artemis: Female Initiation or Substitute Sacrifice,” in Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives: New Critical Perspectives, Dodd, D.B. and C.A. Faraone, eds., London and New York, pp. 43-68.

Knigge, U. 2005. Der Bau Z, (Kerameikos 17), Berlin. Kurtz, D.C. 1975. Athenian White Lekythoi: Patterns and Painters, (Monographs on Classical Archaeology), Oxford.

Fritzilas, S. 2006. Ο Ζωγράφος του Θησέα. Η Αττική Αγγειογραφία στην Εποχή της Νεοσύστατης Αθηναϊκής Δημοκρατίας, Athens.

Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore, Oxford.

Grammenos, D.B. and M.A. Tiverios. 1984. “Ανασκαφή Ενός Νεκροταφείου του 5ου αι. π.Χ. στην Αρχαία Άργιλο,” ArchDelt 39, pp. 1-47.

Lloyd-Jones, P.H. 1983. “Artemis and Iphigeneia”, JHS 103, pp. 87-102. Mavridis,

311

F.and

L.

Kormazopoulou

2007-2008.

ALEXANDRA ZAMPITI “Ανώνυμο Σπήλαιο Σχιστού Κερατσινίου. Η Ανασκαφή των ετών 2006-2007. Τα Πρώτα Στοιχεία της Έρευνας,” AAA 40-41 [2009], pp. 13-23.

Rotroff, S.I. 1988. “The Long-petal Bowl from the Pithos Settling Basin,” Hesperia 57, pp. 87-93. Rotroff, S.I. 1991. “Attic West Slope Vase Painting,” Hesperia 60, pp. 59-102.

Mommsen, A. 1898. Feste der Stadt Athen im Altertum. Geordnet nach attischen Kalender, Leipzig. Moore, M.B. 1997. Attic Red-figured and White-ground Pottery, (Agora 30), Princeton, New Jersey.

Rotroff, S.I. 1997. Hellenistic Pottery, Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, (Agora 29), Princeton, New Jersey.

Moore, M.B. and M.Z.P. Philippides. 1986. Attic Blackfigured Pottery, (Agora 23), Princeton, New Jersey.

Rühfel, H. 1984. Kinderleben im klassischen Athen. Bilder auf klassischen Vasen, Mainz am Rhein.

Mösch-Klingele, R. 2006. Die Loutrophoros im Hochzeits- und Begräbnisritual des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Athen, (Echo, Collection de l'Institut d'Archeologie et des Sciences de l'Antique de l'Universite de Lausanne 6), Bern.

Scheibler, I. 1976. Griechische Lampen, (Kerameikos 11), Berlin.

Osborne, R. 1985. Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attika, Cambridge.

Shapiro, H.A. 1989. Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, Mainz am Rhein.

Palaiokrassa, L. 1991. To Ιερό της Αρτέμιδος Μουνιχίας, Athens.

Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attika, An Archaeological Commentary, Madison, Wisconsin.

Papamanoli-Guest, A. 2002. “Aegean Island Caves: Diachronic Cult Places,” in World Islands in Prehistoric International Insular Investigations, (V Deia International Conference of Prehistory, Deia Archaeological Museum and Research Center, September 13-18, 2001), W.H. Waldren and J.A. Ensenyat, eds., (BAR-IS 1095), Oxford, pp. 529-536.

Slane, K.W. 1990. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Roman Pottery and Lamps, (Corinth 18, 2), Princeton, New Jersey.

Parke, H.W. 1977. Festivals of the Athenians, Aspect of Greek and Roman Life, London.

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1990. “Ancient Rites and Modern Constructs: On the Brauronian Bears Again,” BICS 37, pp. 1-14.

Sgourou, M. 1994. Attic Lebetes Gamikoi, Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1988. Studies in Girls’ Transitions: Aspects of the Arkteia and Age Representation in Attic Iconography, Athens.

Perlman, P. 1983. “Plato Laws 833C-834D and the Bears of Brauron,” GRBS 24, pp. 115-30.

Sparkes B.A. and L. Talcott. 1970. Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C., (Agora 12), Princeton, New Jersey.

Pingiatoglou, S. 2005. Δίον, το Iερό της Δήμητρος. Οι Λύχνοι, Thessaloniki.

Spathi, M., and D.Hatzilazarou. 2008. “The Cave at Schisto, Keratsini (Attika) in Historical Times,” Paper read at the Colloquium New Research in Greek Caves, May 24th, Athens. Sporn, K. 2002. Heiligtümer und Kulte Kretas in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit, (Studien zu Antiken Heiligtümern 31), Heidelberg.

Pipili, M. 1993. Attic Black-figure Skyphoi, (CVA Greece 4, Athens National Museum 4), Athens. Pipili, M. 2001. “Samos, the Artemis Sanctuary. The Laconian Pottery,” JdI 116, pp.17-102. Ramsay, W.M. 1907. The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought, the Cities of Eastern Asia Minor, London.

Thompson, H.A. 1934. “Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery,” Hesperia 3, pp. 311-480.

Romaios, K. 1906. “Ευρήματα Ανασκαφής του επί της Πάρνηθος Άντρου,” ArchEph, pp. 89-116.

Threpsiades, J. and E.Vanderpool. 1964. “Themistokles’ Sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule,” ArchDelt 19, pp. 2636.

Romaios, K.A. 1929. “Η Κάθαρση της Δήλου και το Εύρημα του Σταυρόπουλου,” ArchDelt 12, pp.181-224.

Travlos, I. 1960. “Ελευσίς (1950-1960). 1. Ιερόν και Πόλις Ελευσίς,” ArchDelt 16, [Chron. 1], pp. 43-55.

Rotroff. S.I. 1982. Hellenistic Pottery, Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls, (Agora 22), Princeton, New Jersey.

Travlos, J. 1971. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen, Tübingen.

312

SCHISTO CAVE AT KERATSINI (ATTIKA): THE POTTERY FROM CLASSICAL THROUGH ROMAN TIMES Wernicke, K. 1895. “Artemis,” RE 2 (1), pp. 1335-1440.

313

ALEXANDRA ZAMPITI

Figure 18.1. Sherds of Corinthian vases

Figure 18.4. Pyxides (a-c), thurible lid (d) and skyphos (e)

Figure 18.5. Black-figured oinochoai.

Figure 18.22. Krateriskoi

Figure 18.6. Mesomphalos phialai.

Figure 18.3. Black-figured and white-ground lekythoi. One at the centre is decorated with a battle scene.

314

SCHISTO CAVE AT KERATSINI (ATTIKA): THE POTTERY FROM CLASSICAL THROUGH ROMAN TIMES

Figure 18.7. Red-figured loutrophoroi.

Figure 18.10. Pieces of a red-figured bell krater and a kantharos.

Figure 18.8. Red-figured lebetes gamikoi.

Figure 18.11. Red-figured sherd probably of a chous.

Figure 18.9. Sherds of red-figured lekythoi and unidentified vases

Figure 18.12. Black-glazed saltcellar(a), pyxis (b-c) and Rhenia type cup (d)

315

ALEXANDRA ZAMPITI

Figure 18.13. Acrocup.

Figure 18.16. Miniature skyphos-krateriskos (a) and piece of a black-glazed kantharos (b)

Figure 18.14. Stamped designs in the interior of the Acrocup.

Figure 18.17. Stamped motifs in the interior of the blackglazed kantharos.

Figure 18.15. Miniature pointed amphoriskos.

Figure 18.18. Kalathoi.

316

SCHISTO CAVE AT KERATSINI (ATTIKA): THE POTTERY FROM CLASSICAL THROUGH ROMAN TIMES

Figure 18.19. Pieces of two kantharoi with West slope decoration (a) and of one side-pouring lekythos (b).

Figure 18.22. Sherds of red-glazed relief bowls.

Figure 18.20. Oinochoe with West slope decoration.

Figure 18.23. Red-glazed miniature lekanis.

Figure 18.21. Pieces of a pyxis lid (a) and a relief bowl with West slope decoration (b).

Figure 18.24. Pieces of transport amphorae.

317

ALEXANDRA ZAMPITI

Figure 18.25. Cooking ware.

Figure 18.28. Lamp pieces of the 4th century A.D.

Figure 18.29. Sherds of krateriskoi decorated with several themes.

Figure 18.26. Black-glazed lamp pieces of the 5th century B.C..

Figure 18.27. Lamp pieces of the early Roman times.

318

PREHISTORIC USE AND ANCIENT RITUAL WORSHIP AT THE CAVE OF HAGIA TRIADA ON HELIKON present slopping path from the plateau down to the cave’s mouth is due to the thick earth deposits accumulated through the centuries in front of the cave’s entrance. On the same rock, about 2 m above the entrance, the inscription ΚΟΡΩΝΕΙΑ ΝΥΜΦΗ (transl.: to the Nymph Koroneia) is carved, pointing to the Nymph Koroneia as a worshipped deity in the sanctuary.

19 Prehistoric Use And Ancient Ritual Worship At the Cave Of Hagia Triada On Helikon Vivi Vasilopoulou

The interior of the cave consists of one funnel-shaped chamber, 16 m high, finishing with a small opening at the ceiling, which provides some light but also intruding material to the interior. In fact the relatively high altitude of the site and the opening in the roof permitted the external climate conditions to exercise a direct effect on the microclimate of the cave and to contribute to its rapid erosion. The main sediment where all prehistoric and later artifacts have been excavated in, consisted of a very thick brown sandy argillaceous deposit which is partly owed to material carried through the entrance of the cave by wind and rain, and by limestone chippings of various dimensions from rock erosion.

Introduction The cave of Hagia Triada on the northeastern slope of mount Helikon, Boeotia, central Greece, has yielded material culture of a major and long-lived sanctuary in Antiquity, and has been conclusively identified with the ‘cavern of Leibethrian Nymphs’ to which Pausanias made special reference in his travel memories. The association of the cave with the Nymphs is further supported by the large number of inscriptions attested on figurines and ceramic sherds from the cave, while a dedicative inscription to the nymph Koroneia was inscribed above the cave’s entrance. The cave also hosted worship for several deities of the Greek mythology, god Pan being outstanding as suggested by the quantity and variety of his coroplastic representations. The overall votive assemblage is huge including vessels, figurines, astragaloi, bone artifacts and sculpture of various origins in the mainland and chronologically extending from the Archaic to the Roman period. The site has hosted a preceding occupation of domestic character in the Bronze Age and the Neolithic.

Prehistoric Occupation Excavation has revealed stratified deposits of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), as well as predating and post-dating scattered finds from the Mycenaean period and from the Early Helladic II and the Final Neolithic. The MBA levels are damp and crumbling and contain a large number of small stones produced by the erosion of the cave. At that time use of the cave was centred around overlaying elliptical pyres covering an area of at least 4 m2, and having an average thickness of 0.50 m. Microstratigraphic investigation (observations by Dr P. Karkanas, geologist at the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology-Speleaology of South Greece) has revealed that the pyres in fact consisted of a “package” of successive thin layers of ash, charcoal and burnt earth now forming a colorful sequence of thin deposits (Fig. 19.4). The pyres have probably resulted from repeated and extensive burning of large quantities of wood and leaves on the floor of the cave or of manure. The ashes contained few finds, while the majority of the ceramic fragments, lithics and animal bones were discovered on their fringes. The dating to the Middle Helladic period is concluded from the ceramic typology, and is further confirmed by three radiocarbon dates giving an average date of 1780 B.C. for the specific deposit. In more detail, radiocarbon dating has produced average absolute dates as following: 1876-1748 B.C. (Nuclear Research Center Demokritos, Athens); 19001760 B.C. and 1760-1630 B.C. (Centro Di Datazione e Diagnostica (CEDAD), Università degli Studi di Lecce, Italy).

Setting And Geology Of The Cave The cave of Leibethrian Nymphs, otherwise known as the “Cave of Nymph Koroneia”, who is mentioned on the inscription above the cave’s entrance, lies on the northeast slopes of mount Helikon in Boeotia, central mainland, about 2 km to the west of the modern village of Hagia Triada, in the district of Leivadia (Figs. 19.1, 19.2). The site lies at an altitude of 820 m above sea level and is one of the rare Greek caves at that altitude attesting to ancient use (see also the Corycian Cave overlooking Delphi at mount Parnassos, and the Cave of Lakes at mount Helmos, north Peloponnese). It was discovered in 1984 by a local resident, and has been since 1987 systematically investigated by the Ephoreia of PalaeoanthropologySpelaeology under the direction of the present author (Vasilopoulou 1987, 703). The creation of the cave was principally due to tectonic cause, the poor cohesion of the limestone mass and the dense complex of discontinuities in it. The small plateau in front of the cave is a trapezoidal depression caused by subsidence (Kambouroglou et al. 1987), which is enclosed at the north, east, and west by vertical limestone masses (Fig. 19.3). There are three artificial rectangular cuttings arranged in a triangle on the rock of the southeast side of this open area. Also the west face of this plateau shows five similar recesses of various dimensions cut into it. Another much smaller recess is cut into the north limestone rock, directly above the mouth of the entrance. The

More specifically, the greatest quantity of the prehistoric pottery belongs to vases of coarse fabrics, though often with a smoothed and then slipped and polished surface. Most are broad-mouthed deep containers and some are bowls. A deep globular vase with burnt surface from use on fire had a perforation at its lower body. Grey and black Minyean Ware is also present. Most typical are a number of black-polished monochrome fragments bear-

319

VIVI VASILOPOULOU ing deep-incised linear decoration which is absolutely identifiable with the particular period (Fig. 19.5). In addition to the pottery, spindle whorls, chipped stone tools of local flint and obsidian as well as animal bones, several of them burnt, were also recovered.

circle on the body of at least one plank-shaped figurine of Archaic date (Vasilopoulou 1995, 834), and has led to the identification of the sanctuary with the cave of Leibethrian Nymphs attested in the ancient literary sources (Vasilopoulou 1994, 845). Strabo is the first to mention a sanctuary on mount Helikon, saying: “ο μέν ουν Ελικών ου πολύ διεσηκώς του Παρνασσου ενάμιλλός εστιν εκείνω κατά τε ύψος και περίμετρον άμφω γαρ χιονοβόλα τα όρη και πετρώδη, περιγράφεται δ’ ου πολλή χώρα ενταύθα δ’ εστί το τε των Μουσών ιερόν και η Ίππου κρήνη και το των Λειβηθρίδων νυμφών άντρον” (Strabo 9.2.25.409-9.2.25.410).

In the area around the pyres scattered examples of Early Helladic II pottery were collected, including an impressive painted and incised bull figurine of the same date (Fig. 19.6). Few fragments from Late Helladic IIIB decorated kylikes (Fig. 19.7) have also been recovered. Prehistoric finds suggest that the cave was regularly occupied during the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C.. The altitude almost securely point to its exclusively summer use. In the MBA the cave must have served either as a satellite site to an open establishment of makeshift mountain facilities, or have been occupied per se to host basic domestic practices of nomadic herdsmen who mounted to this area seasonally for the summer. Such practices might include the use of the cave as a shelter for humans and domesticates, or as pen for the stock, possibly as a foodpreparation, food-consumption and storage area for the community. Hints of an open prehistoric site were however located during an earlier surface survey in the broader area of the cave, but are not still securely dated to some specific period (Suto 1987). Similar domestic uses depending or not depending to an adjacent open site are frequently associated with upland and lowland caves in the Greek Mainland and the Aegean in the Neolithic and the Middle Bronze Age, such as, for example, at the Corycian Cave near Delphi on mount Parnassos (Touchais 1981), and the Sarakenos Cave in the Kopais basin (Sampson, ed., 2008).

He is followed by Pausanias in the 2nd century A.D., who visited the village Koroneia on his journey to Orchomenos, and calculated his way up to the sanctuary to about 40 stades (ca. 7.5 km) from Koroneia: “Κορωνείας δε σταδίους ως τεσσαράκοντα όρος απέχει το Λιβήθριον, αγάλματα δε εν αυτω μουσων τε και νυμφων επίκλησίν εστι λιβηθρίων˙ και πηγαί (την μεν Λιβηθριάδα ονομάζουσιν, η δε ετέρα Πέτρα) γυναικός μαστοίς εισιν εικασμέναι, και όμοιον γάλακτι ύδωρ απ’ αυτων άνεισιν” (Paus. 9.34.4.). The excavated offerings amount to thousands of all kinds of artifacts. Ceramic vases amount to more than 700 pots, either intact or restorable, featuring rich typological variability. The larger part of the assemblage dates from the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods, but there is also a smaller number of pots from early Roman times. Most vases originate from Attic and Corinthian workshops and only few are of Boeotian and Euboean provenance (Figs. 19.8, 19.9) (Zampiti and Vasilopoulou 2008). Specifically, Boeotian origin is securely identified thanks to the diagnostic Boeotian style in terms of shape and decoration. Moreover some of the vases fall within the group of Attic and Corinthian imitations produced in local workshops (for Corinthian imports to Boeotia or Boeotian imitations of Corinthian vases, see Andriomenou 1981-1982, 282-286; 1986, 93-96); Attic replicas are often difficult to distinguish from the original pieces, which is not the case for the Corinthian-like products lacking the typically Corinthian yellowish clay fabric.

However the presence of the EBA and the Mycenaean scatters might be related to a rather symbolic use of the cave, as probably attested by the bull figurine and the decorated kylikes. Especially in the Mycenaean period caves are not hosting systematic domestic activities but are rather attesting to brief symbolic (ritual?) use materialized with ash hearths and drinking vessels (Katsarou 1993). Cult Use In Antiquity

Vase repertory mainly includes drinking cups, such as kylikes (Fig. 19.10), skyphoi and kotylai (Fig. 19.11), kantharoi, and to a smaller amount other shapes such as plates, oinochoai, lekythoi (Fig. 19.12), exaliptra, pyxides, unguentaria, and incense burners. A large group of miniature vases of similar shape variability has also been found. The black-figured style is the most frequent within painted pottery, only few being red-figured. Imagery usually draws from mythology with special interest to the Dionysiac cycle, but includes also scenes from the everyday life. More Boeotian pottery of similar shape repertory and decoration has been uncovered in the cemeteries of Akraiphnia (Andriomenou 1977, 273-286) and Ritsona (Ure 1934).

In Antiquity the cave is extensively and densely used as a shrine for the cult of several primary or secondary deities of the Greek mythology. Evidence attesting to this use is also confirmed by the presence of artificial recesses cut on the rocks at the plateau outside of the cave’s entrance; the shape, size and width of those recesses was formed in Antiquity to suitably fit the installation of votive sculpture and tripods with torches that would lead visitors to the sacred cave’s interior. Worship has been mainly attributed to the Nymphs, as can be deduced from the inscriptions, either painted or incised, preserved on a large number of sherds. Most impressive is the oldest such inscription writing ΛΕΙΒΕΣΘΡΙΑΔΕΣΙ ΠΥΘΙΑ, which is carved in a semi-

320

PREHISTORIC USE AND ANCIENT RITUAL WORSHIP AT THE CAVE OF HAGIA TRIADA ON HELIKON Several pots though are black-glazed, while a large number from the Latest Antiquity comes from unglazed and unpainted monochrome wares.

Pasquier 1977; Jacquemin 1984). Within this large group, the species of sheep and goat predominate, while far fewer astragaloi come from pigs and bovines. Most are deposited in their natural shape, but many have been previously worked, i.e. perforated, smoothed, inscribed or painted (Colombini et al. 2004). Their use as offerings should be possibly associated with future telling, or with their use for board games. Bone artifacts also include hundreds of pens, needles and pins, and some particular fragments from a comb and from flutes (Vasilopoulou 1994, 845; 1995, 834).

A prominent place within the ceramic assemblage is occupied by the large number of lamps. They are moldmade, mainly unpainted and several are adorned with figurative or floral reliefs on the disc. The recovery of several column lamps of Roman date is notable. Terracotta figurines from the cave demonstrate similar broadness of qualitative and quantitative features. In terms of dating, they cover the same broad chronological spectrum with pottery, and include many new coroplastic types apart from those recorded from other sites (for similar types from the Kabireion of Thebes, see Schmaltz 1974; from the cemetery of Ritsona, see Ure 1927; 1934). The Archaic plank-shaped figurines (Fig. 19.13) are most impressive for their manufacturing technique in relation to their pre-classic chronology. Classic and later figurines from the cave can be more safely identified with specific deities of the Greek mythology. In fact there is a correlation between a plethora of different types with each certain deity, which can either suggest the different origins of synchronous worshippers carrying products of different workshops to the cave, or the diachronic changes of the ancient Greek deity figurative imagery. Aphrodite for example is represented with over than 200 specimens from at least 15 different types (Fig. 19.14) (Vasilopoulou et al. forthcoming). God Pan (Vasilopoulou 2000, 404-431) is the most loved, depicted in more than 300 figurines classified under at least 20 different types (Figs. 19.15-19.17), many of which were for the very first time encountered in this sanctuary (Hatzilazarou and Vasilopoulou 2008). Their dating from a time span of over two centuries is eloquent of how much long-lived Pan’s worship was. Artemis, Kybele, Hermes are also represented in the coroplastic offerings of the cave. Some specimens from the Tanagra type should be dated from the Hellenistic period (Fig. 19.18), along with some grotesque coroplastic figures. Generally speaking, female types predominate.

Significant examples of small-scale marble sculpture have also survived (Fig. 19.20). Amongst them we may note a small piece from the leg of a goat-footed Pan, an inscribed Hermaic stele, a headless female statuette, and two reliefs, one depicting Pan next to a female figure, and the upper part of another female figure holding a bowl. The Exterior Plateau Pausanias has in fact made special reference to some rich collection of sculptures installed at the site in dedication to the Muses and Nymphs. Such description has challenged most recent fieldwork of the project to explore activities outside of the cave’s entrance and relevant material culture. Excavated sediments were about 1 m thick and sat on big rocks probably fallen from the overlooking limestone masses; however it is not safe whether this is an episode pre- or post-dating human use of the location, thus overlying more deposits underneath. Excavation has shown evidence for the existence of a wooden shelter in front of the rock where the recesses are located; the shelter should most probably date from Later Antiquity, and was burnt at some stage. Dense late Hellenistic pottery was predominating over fewer Classic fragments in terms of pottery, while Classic and Hellenistic figurines, coins, beads, jewelry, metal artwork and marble sculpture are recovered. In particular marble sculpture of the site has been very rewarding with the recovery of two female heads (0.15 and 0.10 m max. size) of 4th century B.C. date. The bigger head is missing the nose, has a long neck and has been flattened at the back side, which is suggesting it was installed against some kind of wall. The smaller head bears a small artificial hole on the front. More sculpture includes a fragment of a right hand missing the fingers, and a very fragmented piece possibly depicting the garment of some figure.

Another sizeable and variable group should include female (for similar Archaic types of female protomes, see Croissant 1983) and male terracotta protomes, mainly dating from the late 6th and 5th centuries B.C.. Clay zoomorphic figurines of doves, pigs, bulls, caprids, cockerels, and hares are present in various sizes and types. At the same time, there is a large number of miniature models of furniture, such as tables, couches, stools, as well as of baskets, fruits (pomegranates and apples), and children’s toys (dolls and rattles).

Conclusion The cave of Hagia Triada is a palimpsest of human occupation overlying prehistoric domestic activities with utmost symbolism and ritual in the Era of Antiquity. The synthesis of the independent studies of each group of offerings reveals this site as one of the richest cave sanctuaries so far excavated in Greece. The cults of Pan and Nymphs are indeed very frequently associated with the greek caves, called nymphaea for that reason. The

In addition to the rich groups of pottery and figurines there is an extra sizeable collection of bone objects (Fig. 19.19). About 7000 astragaloi have been registered, a number rivalling the contemporaneous assemblage of astragaloi excavated in the neighboring sanctuary at the Corycian Cave at Parnassos (for similarities with the Corycian Cave in terms of worship and offerings, see

321

VIVI VASILOPOULOU amount of the offerings of all kinds and the persistency of the cult in the cave from the Archaic to the early Roman period shows that site had extended response to the local people and had created a tradition of local worship. The variety of choices for ritual offerings indeed transcended the boundaries of the local Boeotian production, and applied to imports and local imitations of cultural styles originating from a wider zone of the south Greek Mainland, such as Corinth, Athens and Euboea (Zampiti 2012).

In fact, the variety of artifacts and their provenance originating from far beyond Boeotia, Attika, Corinthia and Euboea is directly depending from a network of complementary aspects of culture, including religious ideologies and iconographies, local economic policies of the citystates, distribution and exchange of coinage, travelling geography, ceramic, coroplastic and other workshop strategies and influences, artistic styles, manufacturing techniques, procurement of raw materials and artwork, personal choices of the individual worshippers, religious staff at the cave and technicians of the artifacts variously acting on the background of long-lasting traditions.

322

PREHISTORIC USE AND ANCIENT RITUAL WORSHIP AT THE CAVE OF HAGIA TRIADA ON HELIKON

Pasquier, A. 1977. “Pan et les Nymphes à l’Antre Corycien,” (BCH Suppl. 4), pp. 365-387.

Bibliography Andriomenou, Α. 1977. “Το Nεκροταφείο της Αρχαίας Ακραιφίας,” ΑΑΑ 10, pp. 273-286.

Schmaltz, B. 1974. Terrakotten aus den Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben, Berlin.

———. 1981-1982. “Συχνότης Κορινθιακής Κεραμικής εις Βοιωτίαν και Εύβοιαν,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Peloponnesian Studies, Athens, (Vol. 2), pp. 282-286.

Suto, Y. 1987. “New Prehistoric Site at Hagia Triada in Boiotia,” ΑΑΑ 20, pp. 66-74. Touchais, G. 1981. “Le Materiel Néolithique,” (BCH Suppl. 7), pp. 95-172.

———. 1986. “Το Αρχαϊκό Νεκροταφείο της Ακραιφίας. Μία Νέα Πηγή Κορινθιακής Κεραμικής,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Corinthian Studies, Athens, pp. 93-96.

Ure, P.N. 1927. Sixth and Fifth Century Pottery from Rhitsona, Oxford.

Colombini, M., A. Carmignani, F. Modugno, F. Frezzato, A. Olchini, H. Brecoulaki, V. Vasilopoulou, and P. Karkanas. 2004. “Integrated Analytical Techniques for the Study of Ancient Greek Polychromy,” Taranta 63, pp. 839-848.

———. 1934. Aryballoi and Figurines from Rhitsona in Boeotia, Cambridge.

Croissant, F. 1983. Les Protomes Feminines Archaiques, Athens and Paris.

———. 1994. “Άντρο Λειβηθρίδων του Ελικώνα,” ArchDel 49, pp. 844-845.

Hatzilazarou, D. and V. Vasilopoulou. 2008. “Η Eξέλιξη της Mορφής του Πάνα στην Kοροπλαστική Παραγωγή της Βοιωτίας,” in Δ΄ Διεθνές Συνέδριο Βοιωτικών Μελετών, (Λειβαδιά, 9-12 Σεπτεβρίου 2000, Eπετηρίς της Εταιρείας Βοιωτικών Μελετών), Athens, pp. 473-494.

———. 1995. “Σπήλαιο Νύμφης Κορώνειας,” ArchDel 50, pp. 832-834.

Vasilopoulou, V. 1987. “Αγία Τριάδα,” ArchDel 42, p. 703.

______.2000. “Από το Άντρο των Λειβηθρίδων στον Ελικώνα,” Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βοιωτικών Μελετών, 3 (1), pp. 404-431.

Jacquemin, A. 1984. “Céramique des Epoques Archaique, Classique et Hellenistique,” (BCH Suppl. 9), pp. 27-155.

Vasilopoulou, V., N. Skoumi and E. Nassioti. [forthcoming]. “The Presence of Aphrodite at the Sanctuary of ‘Nymph Koroneia’ at Mount Helikon,” in Terracotta Figurines in the Greek and Roman Eastern Mediterranean. Production, Diffusion, Iconography and Function, (International Conference Izmir, June 2-6, 2007).

Kambouroglou, Ε., S. Kyritsi-Kambouroglou, Th. Hatzitheodorou, and A. Sampson. 1987. “Το Σπήλαιο Νύμφης Κορώνειας στην Αγία Τριάδα Βοιωτίας,” in Τεχνική Περιοδική Έκθεση, Αποκατάσταση, Συντήρηση, Προστασία Μνημείων και Συνόλων, (Vol. 2), Athens, pp. 251-263.

Ζampiti, A. 2012. Λειβήθριο Άντρο Ελικώνα Βοιωτίας: Από την Κεραμική των Αρχαϊκών και Κλασικών Χρόνων, Ph.D diss., University of Ioannina.

Katsarou, S. 1993. “Late Helladic III A-B Finds from the Skoteini cave,” in A. Sampson (ed.), Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων, Το Σπήλαιο, ο Οικισμός, το Νεοκροταφείo, Athens, pp. 314-322.

Ζampiti, A. and V. Vasilopoulou. 2008. “Κεραμική Αρχαϊκής και Κλασικής Περιόδου από το Λειβήθριο Άντρο του Ελικώνα,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Boeotian Studies, (Leivadia, September 9, 2000), Athens, pp. 445-472.

323

VIVI VASILOPOULOU

Figure 19.1 Map of Greece with the position of the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Illustration by F. Lambezakis).

324

PREHISTORIC USE AND ANCIENT RITUAL WORSHIP AT THE CAVE OF HAGIA TRIADA ON HELIKON

Figure 19.2. View of the northeast slopes of the Mount Helikon with the location of the Cave (Photo by N. Skoumi).

Figure 19.4. Detail photo from the Middle Helladic pyre’s microstratigraphy (Photo by P. Karkanas).

Figure 19.3. Entrance and outer plateau of the Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs (Photo by N. Skoumi).

Figure 19.5. Fragments from Middle Helladic ‘Adriatic’ incised ware (Photo by S. Katsarou).

325

VIVI VASILOPOULOU

Figure 19.9. Hellenistic vases (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

Figure 19.6. Early Helladic II bull figurine (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

Figure 19.10. Attic kylikes (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

Figure 19.7. A Mycenean kylix with painted decoration. (Photo by S. Katsarou).

Figure 19.11. Attic kylikes (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

Figure 19.8. Examples of Corinthian vases (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

326

PREHISTORIC USE AND ANCIENT RITUAL WORSHIP AT THE CAVE OF HAGIA TRIADA ON HELIKON

Figure 19.15. Fragments of figurines of Pan in various types (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.12. Maravelias).

Black-figure

lekythoi

(Photo

by

Y.

Figure 19.16. Fragments of figurines of Pan in various types (Photo by Y. Maravelias). Figure 19.13. Various types of Archaic figurines including a number of plan-like examples (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

Figure 19.17. Fragments of figurines of Pan in various types (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

Figure 19.14. Figurines of Aphrodite (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

327

VIVI VASILOPOULOU

Figure 19.18. Hellenistic figurines including several Tanagra figurines (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

Figure 19.19. Bone artifacts and astragaloi (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

Figure 19.20. Fragments of marble statues (Photo by Y. Maravelias).

328

DIGGING UP CAVE: A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE -ly with the research and preservation of caves (Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology ) came quite recently, only 30 years ago, at a premature stage in terms of organization and substantial equipment, at the same time that the Greek archaeological service is the oldest state service of the modern Greek state (since 1834).

20 Epilogue Digging Up Caves: A Unique Experience Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika

Nevertheless, some brief attempts for the exploration of caves did take place in the past, especially due to the bravery and the uneasy spirits of some of our older colleagues (indicatively are referred Bakalakis 1958; Sakellarakis 1983, 1984; Papathanasopoulos 1971, 1996) although old attempts focused usually on small caves, for example at the perimeter of the Akropolis in Athens (Kavvadias 1897).

Introduction When excavating a cave one has to confront difficulties not experienced in open-air sites. These are: 1. Inborn, having to do with natural factors such as the nature of the cave site, the form and the size of the cave’s mouth, its interior as well as the availability of clear ground into the cave due to rocks that fall off the roof, the stability of the cave’s walls and roof, and water drippings that, apart from being an obstacle to the excavator, can also cause accidents due to the slippery surfaces that have been created. 2. Moreover, one has to confront difficulties arising during the excavation, that have to do with the sedimentation processes and their interpretation, as well as the intrusion of archeological material into lower layers that may cause stratigraphic confusion due to geophysical factors. The action of water usually invading into a cave through carstic aquifers can produce chemical reactions between the soils’ components. When in contact with organic material, for example bones, it can cause their absolute dissolution giving false impressions about the archaeological data. Additionally, the invading water can bring large quantities of stones into a cave that gradually create thick layers that are difficult to interpret with a first glance. The settling of the water into the cave creates lithified surfaces overlying the archaeological deposits and thus trapping them. The artificial burrows created by animals before and during an excavation can cause material displacements and lead to stratigraphic confusion and to interpretation problems. These are some of the special problems directly related to cave excavations and will be discussed analytically in this paper in parallel with propositions for their confrontation.

Today, the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, displays a notable number of excavations in caves and rock shelters from various archaeological periods, through which the Early Prehistory of the Hellenic region has come to light, a period that up until recently had been somewhat neglected. Moreover, the use of caves as sites of worship since the Minoan period and up until Historical times completes the set of sanctuaries that were already known from open-air sites in Greece. Only that the mystery of darkness and half light in caves has triggered the creation of certain myths concerning either the existence of hidden karstic paths leading deep inside the earth, or the existence of hidden treasures somewhere in them. However, in many cases the hunt of mythical treasures in caves has just led to the destruction of archaeological deposits since in most cases the treasure simply wasn’t there… In 2003 the Ministry of Culture moved towards the creation of a second Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology that is responsible for the northern parts of Greece, hence the first one is now responsible for the southern parts of Greece. One of my childhood’s favorite books was Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer. I was fascinated by the adventure that he and his friend Becky went through in the Cave of McDougall in Cardiff, where they nearly lost their lives trying to explore the cave without being prepared in terms of planning and resources. They kept on going deeper into the cave following unknown paths and they managed to escape the labyrinth only by pure luck. Those memories escorted me to my first cave explorations in 1986 when I was transferred to the Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology and I still remembered Tom Sawyer’s stories where bats were desperately flying around the children in the cave who were afraid they would be attacked by them. This imaginary fear definitely made me put my helmet on, although through time I realized that the continuing presence of people in a cave forced the bats out of the cave - not the opposite… What is certain though is that caves should always be explored with maximum safety measures since you never know the dangers that might come up in your way.

Caves have constituted human shelters and ready-made dwellings in the past, not only during the Early Prehistoric periods when they comforted and ensured the preservation of the human species in very cold climates, but also in recent Historical times, especially in times of war, when caves provided secure hideouts for the victimized populations. Their use for stabling and sheltering herds became more frequent during modern times, traces of which (e.g. floor shaping) are apparent up until today (e.g. Theopetra Cave, Franchthi cave e.t.c.), while they also favored the practice of more specialized activities, like the maturing of various types of cheese, due to their ideal conditions of moisture and stable temperature. However, the establishment of a formal state institution under the Greek Ministry of Culture that deals specifical

329

NINA KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA Problems – Peculiarities

cases where there is a village near the cave the team rests, eats and spends the night there, but when the site is far from anything else, the team has to plan everything in advance in order to cover at least their basic needs.

Cave excavations always start with a great advantage: they always take place under a natural roof. This means that no matter what the weather is like outside, one can always keep on working without having to worry about this sort of things. It’s always nice to feel dry and warm when it’s pouring outside, and during the summer when temperatures reach their peak it’s more than pleasant to work in a cool and shaded place. Moreover, caves preserve the archaeological material, whereas open-air sites can be destroyed (especially prehistoric ones without architectural remains), washed away, or completely covered until they are accidentally discovered.

2. Another aspect that often defines the degree of difficulty at a cave excavation is the entrance of the cave. If the entrance is narrow and not easily trespassed it means that all sorts of material transportations will be made with a certain difficulty. Furthermore, any natural light that would pass through the entrance would now be blocked, and thus often causing a sense of claustrophobia to the excavators and most probably to its prehistoric inhabitants as well, although they would most probably prefer living there than being exposed to the harsh conditions and the dangers of the open air.

This is undoubtedly a great (the main) advantage although digging in caves is not always full of them. The above mentioned advantage is though not assured if we have to do with rockshelters as in some cases the fallen roof of the initial cave leaves the deposits and the excavators exposed to weather conditions.

3. The interior of a cave is not always suitable for excavations. In many cases rocks are being detached from the unstable roof of the cave in periods of high tectonic activity. It is by no means certain that rocks will not fall at any given time, since even a small scale earthquake can trigger a series of rock detachments. Therefore, before an excavation starts in a cave, the stability and the integrity of the cave’s rocks and roof should be established even by technical means (for example mechanical support of the roof).

The problems that concern cave excavations can be separated in two categories: A. Those caused by the natural formation of the caves. B. Those that come up during the course of the excavation. The first must be resolved before the excavation starts, otherwise there’s most probably going to be no excavation. The latter keep on coming up all the time, and the more one digs, the more they keep on surfacing.

The presence of running water into a cave can also cause a series of difficulties. Running water can be found in the form of stalactites or in the form of a running stream, or even a river that passes through the cave like in the Cave of Aggitis at the Prefecture of Drama (Trantalidou et al. 2005; Trantalidou, Skaraki and Kara 2007). In all cases the water makes the excavation quite hard since the strata will be moist, muddy, hard to excavate, and difficult to interpret in terms of color differences. Furthermore, if there is, or once was high energy water activity in the cave, it is most probable that the archaeological deposits have been shuffled and disturbed and thus causing both horizontal and vertical displacement of the material. Dripping can also cause problems by covering archaeological material during the stalagmite formation processes. The detachment of the stalagmitic material from the archaeological finds can be very tricky and in some cases it can also destroy the artifacts.

A. Innate Problems 1. A first serious drawback is the cave’s positioning. Only rarely caves can be found near roads that make approaching easier. They are usually hidden on steep slopes and access is only possible by foot and one should always take into account that exist a number of things that should be carried in the cave, like artificial lighting – in the form of generators, tools, and a considerable amount of water for the needs of the excavation. The use of artificial lighting presupposes that every one or two days, oil and gas (fuel) should be carried in the cave for the generator, as well as that one has to cope with the noise and the fumes that the generator produces. Moreover, it takes a good deal of effort to carry a 50 kg generator towards the cave over a steep slope, especially if one takes into account that it is being done by workers who are more motivated by their personal archaeological interests rather than by their low wages. However, having solved the basic problem of lighting makes you more or less forget all the other minor difficulties that come along.

4. Smugglers’ illegal excavations can also cause a series of problems to the archaeologists and to the excavation itself since layers can be partially or totally destroyed, and important artifacts lost along with the information that they would provide. Illegal excavations usually take place in cave sanctuaries of the Classical period (for example Cave of the Leibethrian Nymphs at Hagia Triada in Boeotia) where ancient rare and precious ritual artifacts can be found (Vasilopoulou 2000).

In some cases local magistrates might be persuaded to open up a basic road or path towards the cave in order to make things easier for the excavators, although there are cases, like the Cave of Cyclops on the Island of Gioura near Alonnesos (Sampson 1998; ed., 2008), where there are no inhabitants at all and the team had to camp near the site as long as the excavation lasted in the cave. In

5. To conclude with the innate problems, another form of destruction (this time unintentional) is the modern use of caves for the herding of animals or even as a refuge in times of warfare. Material gets mixed up and modern

330

DIGGING UP CAVE: A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE hearths can definitely influence archaeological information, and therefore interpretation.

used more intensively than others due to intense water dripping, cold conditions, or due to the need for more natural light. In this sense, the same archaeological periods could be very poorly represented in certain areas of the cave, whereas in others they could be represented by thick horizons rich in archaeological deposits. In the Theopetra Cave (Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., 2006), the Neolithic deposits at the center of the cave are up to 1.5 m or even thicker, whereas at the eastern part of the cave where is the darkest area, they hardly reach 0.5 m. In another case in the Theopetra Cave, an irregular concentration of scattered stones originally gave us the impression that they were the remnants of a stone structure, although by excavating the layer horizontally we realized that they were rocks and pebbles that came in the cave by water through the karstic aquifers and had nothing to do with any sort of structures. Therefore, the progression of a cave excavation horizontally rather than vertically always seems like a more reasonable strategy to follow, since there are many factors that could alter or bias our perception of prehistoric cave occupations.

The drawbacks mentioned so far are more or less objective in the sense that others cannot be predicted and others do not necessarily go along with the excavation units themselves. The following lines will try to present all the problems that an archaeologist might be faced with in the course of a cave excavation in terms of interpretation and formation processes. B. Problems During The Excavation 1. The creation of hard deposits due to stalactitic activity or due to periods of very cold and harsh climatic conditions during the Pleistocene can be ‘imprinted’ in the stratigraphy of the deposits. These layers can either have no artifacts at all, which would mean that the site was abandoned at that time, or they can bear a few scattered artifacts which would mean that the site was rarely and not intensively occupied. An inexperienced archaeologist when confronted with hard deposits like the ones mentioned above can proceed into certain misinterpretations: to mistake the hard deposit with the natural bed rock layer of the cave and to suppose that this is the end of the deposited units. In this case, if there is not enough time to dig up more trenches, possibly because there are not enough financial resources for it, one can be misled by thinking that this layer covers the hole cave floor and thus failing to recognize the extent as well as the composition of the particular layer, which, indeed, might present another composition elsewhere in the cave that could lead the archaeologist to completely different observations and interpretations. Furthermore, the same layer can be found higher or lower depending on the declination of the cave’s morphology and therefore one should not be misled by the relative depth of the same layers. The differences in depositional processes coincide with the porosity of the cave’s roof that is not homogenous in all parts of the cave.

3. Animal made tunnels are features encountered quite often in cave deposits. Those are usually made by rodents, badgers and even foxes and in the course of their creation archaeological material from upper layers falls onto lower ones and therefore we get mixed up deposits that sometimes can create confusion. The same applies to organic material such as seeds. We should therefore be very confident of the samples that we collect and always have in mind that samples should be collected from in situ depositional units. In the Theopetra Cave animal made tunnels caused the displacement of clay fragments from the Mesolithic to the Middle Palaeolithic deposits and a whole issue concerning early clay use arose. Water can also invade deep into depositional units giving the impression of a tunnel (larger and less regular in shape than the animal made ones) and it can also create confusion since the effects on the stratigraphy are the same as the ones from the animal made tunnels.

It is possible that the stratigraphy of a single cave excavation displays a series of succeeding episodes that correspond to several periods of intense water dripping into the cave or glaciations due to extreme climatic conditions during the Pleistocene. Those should be evaluated and examined by means of absolute chronology (e.g. radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating), and relative chronology (e.g. artifact technology) in terms of the natural and environmental processes that caused them in the first place, as well as in terms of the socioeconomic impact that they had on the communities that inhabited the site at the time. The close collaboration with geologists in cave excavations, is more than necessary in order to minimize any potential misinterpretations owed to the archaeologists’ poor knowledge on natural formation processes.

4. Niches usually do have deposited material although they are quite hard to excavate since there is little space to move and the presence of many insects make excavators’ life hard. However, since niches are more or less protected by the cave’s natural processes, archaeological deposits are usually, but not always, quite well preserved. 5. Burials are also a notable feature in cave excavations. The fact that a burial could literally be found anywhere in the cave without any indications makes it possible that an inexperienced worker could damage it. Cave burials, unlike more recent open-air cemeteries, should be taken into account as separate and different entities. If for example a Byzantine burial is found with Mesolithic artifacts at the same layers, it only means that the single pit that was dug for the Byzantine burial cut through the deposits of the Mesolithic, and thus giving us the impression that they both form a single stratigraphical entity. However, prehistoric burials (earlier than the Neolithic) in caves are quite rare in Greece and therefore they should be dealt with

2. The stratigraphy of a cave’s deposits should also be examined with caution and in great detail since there are several aspects that could create a false idea about the spatial extent as well as the intensity of the use of a cave at certain times: certain areas of a cave could have been

331

NINA KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA caution and, of course, with the assistance of an anthropologist who will provide the necessary scientific background. Radiocarbon dating on the bones is necessary in order to assure the real age of the skeletal remains.

dents are generally good for this job as they have both the desire to discover as well as the patience to search.

6. Detailed sieving of all the excavated deposits is also necessary due to the poor condition of visibility of a cave, especially at the lower deposits where trenches can reach several meters in depth. It is very interesting to see how many artifacts and organic material escape the workers’ attention in the trench and are retrieved later on during dry or water sieving. The absence of sieving in an excavation can definitely lead to completely different observations and interpretations (for example concerning the production of artifacts on site). Sieving is a process that takes time and requires full attention since in many cases the size of the material is very small. Archaeology stu-

To sum up, patience and persistence are very important factors especially when excavating caves since rush and impatience can only lead to mistakes and misinterpretations. The excavator needs time to get acquainted to the cave environment and to the specific needs of a cave excavation.

Conclusions

I hope that my brief report on the conditions and the peculiarities of a cave excavation doesn’t give the impression that excavating caves is a nightmare! Actually, when someone comes to terms with the excavation’s difficulties and peculiarities, the experience is unique!

332

DIGGING UP CAVE: A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE Bibliography Sampson, A. 1998. “The Neolithic and Mesolithic Occupation of the Cave of Cyclope, Gioura Alonnesos, Greece,” BSA 93, pp. 1-22.

Bakalakis, G. 1958. “H Φουρνοσπηλιά στην Οίτη,” Θεσσαλικά 1, pp. 66-69. Kavvadias, P. 1897. “Tοπογραφικά Αθηνών: Κατά τας περί την Ακρόπολην Aνασκαφάς,” ArchEph, pp. 1-31.

______.ed. 2008. The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece (Vol. I): Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution, (INSTAP Academic Press), Philadelpheia.

Kyparissi-Apostolika, N., ed. 2006. Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998, (Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998), (2nd ed.), Athens.

Trantalidou, K., V. Skaraki, I. Kara, and M. Ntinou. 2005. “Survival Strategies During the Fourth Millennium: Evidence from the Settlement on the Eastern Aggitis River Bank,” To Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 19, Thessaloniki [2006], pp. 45-80.

Papathanasopoulos, G. 1971. “Σπήλαια Δυρού,” AAA 4, pp. 12-26,149-54, 289-304. ———. 1996. “To Σπήλαιο Αλεπότρυπα στο Δυρό Μάνης,” in Νεολιθικός Πολιτισμός στην Ελλάδα, G. Papathanssopoulos, ed., Athens, pp. 80-84.

Trantalidou, K., V. Skaraki and I. Kara. 2007. “Sources of Aggitis in Drama’s Basin. The Ceramic Assemblages from the Interior of the Cave,” AAA 39, pp. 107-138.

Sakellarakis, Y.A. 1983. “Aνασκαφή Ιδαίου Άντρου,” Prakt, pp. 415-500.

Vasilopoulou, V. 2000. “Από το Άντρο των Λειβηθρίδων στον Ελικώνα,” Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βοιωτικών Μελετών, 3 (1), pp. 404-431.

———. 1984. “Aνασκαφή Ιδαίου Άντρου,” Prakt, pp. 507-99.

333