The architectural history of the hestiatoria and the case of Building A of Plakari

(1)

The architectural history of the hestiatoria

and the case of Building A of Plakari

by

Revekka Korokida

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, of

the University of Amsterdam in partial fulfilment

of the requirements of the degree of

Master of the Arts

Thesis supervisor: Prof. Dr. J.P.Crielaard

(2)

(3)

Introduction

Buildings associated with preparation and consumption of food are relatively common in sanctuary contexts of the Classical period as well as in contexts that bear evidence of cult practices already since the EIA period. It seems that right from the start sacrificial meals were the primary activity, which took place in sanctuaries. The evidence (bones, dinking and eating equipment etc.) usually comes from the earliest levels but continue throughout the centuries. The practice of ritual dinning is closely connected with the primary ritual of Greek religion, the sacrifice1. And while these two practices remained in the center of the religion through the centuries, the sacred space in which they functioned altered. As it happened with the temple, there was a general tendency to monumentalization. In the case of ritual dinning the change was represented by the hestiatoria: special buildings, which served the needs of ritual dinning by the elite.

At the site of Plakari, located on a low hill about 2.5 km from the modern city of Karystos in Southern Euboea (Fig.1), Greece, a cult place was established at the top of the hill during the EIA period. The characterization of the site as a cult place occurred mainly from a deposit located at the south slope of the hill, which contained votive material and remains of sacrificial meals and was initially interpreted as apothetes or bothros2. The number and the nature of the finds are such that one would expect to find in a sanctuary rather than in a settlement context. One of the most interesting finds revealed during the 2011 campaign was a small rectangular building situated at the south-east slope of the hill (Fig. 2). The presence of a hearth in the middle of the room along with the finds, that revealed that food and drink preparation and consumption was taking place there, led the excavators to interpret it as an hestiatorion.3

The problem that occurs from this interpretation is that Building A lacks certain characteristics of the Classical hestiatoria. Its small size would be hard to accommodate an adequate number of people and its furnishing does not comprises of couches or sitting benches that would serve the dinners. This problem arises a number of questions concerning the similarities and differences of Building A with buildings characterized as hestiatoria. Could it be that in Plakari we are dealing with an exception or with a different aspect of the development of this type of buildings? Is Building A a regional development of that type of buildings and what is its origin and exact function? Are we dealing with a hybrid type that serves multiple needs?

The method that will be followed in order to give answer to these questions is to examine whether Building A meets the criteria in order to be characterized as an hestiatorion. The question that arises here is what makes a hestiatorion? Which are these features that a building should meet in order to be characterized as such. This leads to the second aim of this research, which is to define the primary features of the hestiatorion and give a sort outline of their development through time. The need to reconstruct the history of this category of buildings related with food and drink preparation and consumption occurs from the lack of a relevant study at the current literature. Apart from isolated studies on specific examples of

1

Marinatos, N., & Hagg, R., 1993. p.228

2

Crielaard J.P. et al., 2011, p.37

3

(6)

ancient Greek hestiatoria, there is no general study on this category of cult buildings regarding the Iron Age and Archaic period. A general study4 on the subject of ritual meals in Greek sanctuaries made by M.S. Goldstein covers the period from 600 to 300 B.C. More specifically, by history we refer to the evolutionary course they followed through these centuries regarding their architectural features as well as the changes that occurred to their function. The main question posed here is whether we can speak of a general development or if we can detect certain patterns of evolution, which was not necessarily linear from simple structures to monumental buildings. The case of the Building A proves that the complexity of a structure of this kind is affected by factors such as the status or the location of the sanctuary rather than the period.

The methodology that is followed in order to outline the history of the hestiatorion is to present representative examples of buildings related with food consumption found in a sanctuary context or related with cult practices arranged geographically and in a relative chronological order and divided into categories according to the primary function of the buildings in order to detect various patterns of evolution through their different origins. A second aim of the presentation of the most important examples of this category of buildings is to define the criteria that distinguish an hestiatorion, based on which the characterization of Building A will be based.

The buildings that are taken under consideration do not belong only to the Late Classical period as the Building A of Plakari, which based on the pottery finds it is dated at the late 5th to early 4rth century B.C. The chronological scope of the study spans a period of six centuries, from the Early Iron Age to the Late Classical period. According to a widely accepted opinion the early history of Greek cult buildings is associated with the edifices of the local rulers. According to A. Mazarakis Ainian, several of the ruler’s dwellings of the EIA hint that their functions was to serve certain religious ceremonies, the most important of which being ritual dinning5. Despite the fact that hestiatoria became a common feature of Greek sanctuaries during the Archaic and Classical periods, this separation of the different aspects of ritual in different buildings did not occur until the LG period when we witness a gradual decline of the previous form of temple-hestiatorion and a tendency to monumentalization.6 Thus the chosen examples include domestic and cult buildings that served for ritual dinning as well as typical examples of Classical hestiatoria. The geographical scope of this study includes the Greek mainland and islands and Asia Minor. The Cyclades are represented with various examples that belong mostly to the Geometric period. Cyprus and the Greek colonies of Italy were excluded due to the space limits of the current research. These space limits, permit only a general outline of the evolutionary course that ritual dinning buildings followed through the centuries, but it can form a base for more detailed future studies.

Regarding the methodology, a limitation that occurs from this broad chronological scope is the choice of the EIA examples. The period under examination is considered relatively problematic. It is the period that Greek religion is under formation and as every formative period it is characterized by a wide variety of forms in contrast with the standardized architectural features of the Classical cult buildings. One of the main problems 4 Goldstein, Michael S., 1978 5 Mazarakis A. A., 1997, p.383 6 Mazarakis A. A., , 391-2

(7)

regarding this period is the identification of a building as a ruler’s dwelling in which cult practices and in particular ritual dinning was taking place. The elements that could suggest that sacred meals were taking place there can equally serve as indications of normal meals.7 Due to the specific needs and limitations of this study the examples from the EIA period that have been taken as examples here are few and widely accepted as sacred buildings, as it is not part of this study to examine the sacredness of such edifices.

Based on the aforementioned arguments it becomes obvious that the early history of the hestiatoria correlates with the early history of the temples. In order to avoid interfering to a different field of research, for the EIA examples of cult buildings research will be focused on their characteristics associated with dinning and not to their general function as cult buildings in order to show which of their features were inherited by the hestiatoria in later periods after their functions were separated.

The evidence that occurred from the excavation of the Plakari site during the 2011 and 2012 field seasons are presented in Chapter 1. This includes the architectural remains, pottery and other movable finds. In this chapter I only present the available evidence without a critical discussion, as this is a part of the last chapter of the study. In Chapter 2, I present evidence from related buildings, organized as mentioned above. At the end of the chapter, I summarize the related buildings’ exceptional features and form the criteria that I use in characterizing Building A. In Chapter 3 I present the effort to outline the history of the hestiatorion through its various origins and regional patterns of evolution by bringing together the evidence presented in the previous chapter. It has to be noted here that the model of the evolutionary course of the hestiatoria presented here is not necessarily a uniform pattern applicable to the entire Greek world. There are, undoubtedly, differences from region to region and from age to age. The last chapter forms the conclusions of this study regarding the Building A of Plakari and to what degree it is related with the analyzed buildings and how it fits in the general development of the hestiatoria.

7

(8)

Chapter 1 Building A of Plakari

Introductory note

The Plakari hill is situated some 2km away of the modern town Karystos, at the southern end of the island of Euboia (Fig.3). It is a relatively low coastal hill with maximum elevation of 85m, consisting of schist stone8. It lies on the edge of a plain known as the Kampos through which flows river Rigia, which reaches the sea directly to the east of Plakari. Fieldwork was initiated there by VU University Amsterdam in 2010. Previous research conducted by Dr Ronald Keller in 1979-1981 in collaboration with the 11th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities confirmed with certainty, the already known importance of the site. His research along with the rescue excavations conducted by the Ephorate brought to light finds that belong mainly in two phases: the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age and the Protogeometric to late Classical period9. Since the 1970’s illegal bulldozing for road construction and the construction of summer homes at the south flank of the hill, caused a great damage to the site, which suffers from erosion.10

As mentioned above the characterization of the site as a cult place occurred mainly from the finds collected at the south slope of the hill where the previous research by Keller had detected a host of pottery, votive material and burnt animal bones in the scarp of a bulldozed road.11 The deposit was initially interpreted as a sacrificial refuse pit, but during the 2011 campaign it became obvious that the material had been deposited there by sliding down from upper levels of the hill, as they were found in a layer of gravel and no stratigraphy could be identified.12 Nevertheless the material that was collected by Keller and kept at the Karystos museum along with the finds that were unearthed in 2011-12 correspond to a sanctuary rather than a settlement context. These were included mostly fine painted pottery of vessels (Fig.4) associated with eating and drinking locally made, that ranges the chronology of these activities in a period from 10th to 7th century B.C13. The majority of the EIA pottery includes a large number of imports from Attica, central Euboia, Corinth and East Greece. The small finds included metal objects like jewellery (Fig.5), clothes ornaments and knives as well as terracotta figurines (Fig.6) that coincide with the interpretation of the place as cultic.14

It should be mentioned at this point that apart from Building A that is analysed here no other architectural remains related with cult activities have been traced thus far, on Plakari hill.15 Nevertheless, during the 2012 campaign, excavation brought to light some structures dating in the Archaic period and probably consisting the first cult installations on Plakari hill. At the W of Building A, a concentration of large stones was discovered, which t was considered a stone platform or a bench. The finds uncovered from there and from the area north of the bench are: a bronze bead, a possibly east Greek aryballos and an ovoid 8_{Crielaard et al. 2011-12, 83,87} 9 Crielaard et al. 2011-12, 91 10_{Crielaard et al. 2011-12, 86} 11_{Crielaard et al. 2011-12, 89} 12 Crielaard et al. 2013, 39 13

Crielaard et al. 2011-12, 100-1, Crielaard et al. 2013,37-39

14_{Crielaard et al. 2013, 40} 15

(9)

Protocorinthian aryballos a bronze grooved ellipsoidal object with a ring attached to the short side, a bronze button, iron pins, an iron hook, a fragment of an iron sword part of another iron sword (Fig. 7) and right next to it a terracotta rattle in that shape of a bird and finally a bronze horse figurine (Fig.8). 16

Architectural remains

During the second excavation season in 2011 three trenches were opened at the SW side of the hill between the TW1 and TW2. These two walls formulate the layout of the hilltop. The TW1 runs the west slope of the hill continuing to the east and would have formed the larger of the two terraces. The second terrace, demarcated by TW2, is located more to the east on the top of the hill (Fig.9). According to the excavators Terrace 1 was probably the place where ritual sacrificial activities were taking place while Terrace 2 constituted a more sacred part of the sanctuary that was set apart.17 Building A was traced within the boundaries of Terrace 2 at the trench 2c (Fig.2), very close to the N section of TW2. The building is rectangular in shape, measuring 4,65m (N-S) by 5,21+m (W-E) and consists of dry stone, hardly worked in medium sized stones of irregular shape, while in between the blocks smaller schist slabs were used to fill the gaps (Fig.10, 11).18 The natural rock was also exploited in the construction of the building as it forms part of the western and southern wall as well as the floor matrix. The entrance of the building, 1.4m wide, was located in the south. The floor was from beaten earth and was quite uneven, although apart of the natural rock, other material were also deposited for levelling purposes.19

The furnishing from the interior consisted of fine schist slabs that were found along the North wall and were probably used as selves (Fig.12). Additionally a flattish semi-circular stone found in the middle of the room with signs of intense burning, which according to the excavators could be a base for a roof support.20 The roof probably consisted of perishable materials as no tiles were found but instead much burnt material was discovered in its interior that appeared to include large pieces of carbonized wood that indicates that probably the roof was destroyed by fire.21. The ‘‘furnishing’’ of the interior is completed by traces of charcoal material and burnt stones in the western area of the room that is identified as the hearth or rather as a sort of fireplace, as no actual structure was found.22 Other traces of possible structures were a large slab found very close to the entrance and a sort of tray made of clay, whose function remains unknown, as well as an area of hard baked clay surrounded by charcoal, probably remains of some sort of small oven.

Related to Building A is also the area to the south that can be considered as its forecourt (Fig.13). Research at this area revealed two surfaces, the earliest of which matches the floor level of Building A.23 Very few movable finds from the period of use were detected. This shows that the area was cleaned. Excavation, however, revealed some structures of uncertain use. Specifically, there are three cists or bins made of schist stone, and several 16_{Crielaard et al. 2014, 6} 17 Crielaard et al. 2011-12, 100 18_{Crielaard et al. 2013, 43} 19_{Crielaard et al. 2014, 5} 20 Crielaard et al. 2014, 5 21 Crielaard et al. 2014, 5 22_{Crielaard et al. 2014, 5} 23 Crielaard et al. 2014, 6

(10)

small divisions (Fig.13) that separate the area at the east.24 As it will become apparent below, although similar structures are known from EIA sanctuaries of the Aegean their exact purpose remains unknown as very few material were collected from inside the bins (pottery fragments, animal bones, small stones).

Pottery

From the interior of Building A a number of vessels and lamps were unearthed. The vessels are banded, black-glazed and plain and most of them are associated with the consumption of food and drink although the size of some vessels, such as the cups, indicates that they might serve well for libations.25 The largest amount of them were found in situ, on, underneath or around the schist slabs, uncovered against the northern wall (Fig.14). They include oinochoae, jugs, skyphoi, cups, mugs, one-handlers and handless bowls, fish-plates, lids with relief decoration, lekythoi, incense burners, hytrai, hydriai and unguent containers (Fig.15).26

Most of the pottery is dated between the late 5th to the late 4rth or 3rd century with an exception of a Protocorinthian oinochoe dating to the mid-7th century, which could have been a relic.27 The dating of the pottery provides the chronological framework of the use of the building. A study of the stylistic details and clay showed that all of them are local products, but some are imitations of Attic types while others are local Euboean products influenced by the Eretrian workshops.

An interesting aspect of the pottery unearthed from Building A is that at least six of these vessels bear graffiti of letters and, in one case, of a word. These inscribed letters are usually either monograms or abbreviations. Specifically they include the letters HI, IA, AΠ or ΠΑ (Fig.16), O and the word NIKE (Fig.17). 28_{The inscribed letters on the surface of vessels}

have various uses, and can be private or commercial abbreviations referring to the owner’s name, trader’s marks or casual letters29._{Nevertheless, in the case of Building A at least one}

graffiti can confirm that we are dealing with a cultic context. According to M. Chidiroglou who studies the pottery corpus of Building A, the monogram HI can be interpreted as ιερόν or ιερός in at least one case, the Rheneia type black-glazed cup (MK1914) where the HI is found together with AΠ or ΠΑ that can be interpreted as monogram of the name Aπ(όλλωνος)-Apollo’s confirming this way the cultic context of Building A.30_{Regarding the abbreviation}

IA, Chidiroglou thinks it can be seen as the number 11, but it can also be Η(ερον) Α(πολλωνος) supporting this way the possibility of the veneration of Apollo at the Plakari sanctuary. Additionally, a fragmentary graffito on a sherd from Plakari bears the letters ΑΡ which could be interpreted as Αρ(τεμις) that could support the veneration of Apollo as well, since the two deities were often venerated together31. Unfortunately, due to the fragmental condition of the sherd, it can be reconstructed in various other ways.

24_{Crielaard et al. 2014, 6} 25 Chidiroglou, 2014, 4, 11 26_{Chidiroglou, 2014, 2} 27_{Chidiroglou, 2014, 3,10} 28 Chidiroglou, 2014, 7-9 29 Chidiroglou, 2014, 7 30_{Chidiroglou, 2014, 8} 31 Chidiroglou, 2014, 8

(11)

An interesting and difficult to explain example of graffiti is the banded one-handler MK 1917 inscribed with the word NIKH on its centre. Chidiroglou suggests three possible ways to interpret the inscription in connection with other Karystian finds. In the first case the word could refer to a political victory of the Karystians especially if it is compared to a stone found at the nearby area of Palaiochora bearing an inscription that refers to a Karystian victory of the end of the 5th century.32 In my opinion, the context of the graffiti belongs to a less public sphere, as a reference to a Karystian victory would be mentioned in a widely exposed object. Another possible explanation is a victory in an agon, as Chidiroglou mentions in her second possible interpretation by referring to an inscription found very close to Plakari referring to a contest that took place at a sanctuary.33 At last, the graffiti could also fit in the context of a symposium, by referring to a victory in some kind of a sympotic game. These kinds of teasing or praises were very common in a sympotic context and are attested by various sources34 and could also support the use of the building for ritual dinning.

In general, the types of vessels, related with food and drink preparation and consumption, combined with some of the graffiti could support the use of the building for cult purposes or at least for preparations of cult activities taking place in the open air. The presence of the lamps, dated from the Early to the Late Classical period, indicates, according to the excavators, that rituals or preparations were performed at night.35 If this assumption is correct we could also assume that food consumption was also taking place at night.

Other finds

Beside pottery the other finds that were unearthed in Building A constitutes anything but a uniform corpus of material. Among these finds were two terracotta female figurines, dated to the mid-6th and mid-4rth century (Fig.18) respectively. The former belongs to the group of the earliest finds unearthed from Building A along with the 5th century lekythos and the Protocorinthian conical oinochoe.36 A surprising and rather peculiar find, was an object that looks like a collar, which the excavator interpreted as a part of Macedonian armour called the peritrahilion37 (Fig.19). Other items were a bronze fixture for a door or piece of furniture (Fig.20), a miniature wheel (Fig.21), four arrows, a lead disc with bronze fittings, and two iron appliques resembling a Boetian shield. Additionally the metal finds included few bronze fibulae and other personal ornaments.38 As with the finds unearthed from the sacrificial refuse area (Trench 1), the finds from Building A do not also indicate a habitation edifice. A valuable piece of information provided by the bronze fixture is that the inventory of Building A probably included chests or cupboards.

32 Chidiroglou, 2014, 9-10 33_{Chidiroglou, 2014,10} 34_{Chidiroglou, 2014, 10} 35 Chidiroglou, 2014, 7 36 Crielaard et al. 2014, 5 37_{Crielaard et al. 2011-2012, 47} 38

(12)

Conclusions

Summarizing, about the findings at the SW flank of Plakari hill, we could say that they outline three main periods of use. The first is during the EIA period, from the 11th until the 7th century B.C. represented by the finds at the sacrificial refuse area with intense cult activities during the 8th century.39 The large quantities of deliberately broken and sometimes deliberately deposited pottery along with the large number of animal bones and knives indicate, according to the excavators, that during the first periods sacrificial rituals were taking place in the open air in this area.40 The TW1 was delineating the area as a free standing wall and the material was deposited there along with personal ornaments that originate mostly from the female world.41

During the Protogeometric and Geometric periods cultic rituals were taking place further to the north of the sacrificial refuse area, at the later Terrace 2. As mentioned above, the first cult installation in this area is probably the rectangular stone structure or bench, found at the W of Building A that can be dated to the Geometric period based on the finds. Apparently, at some point during the 6th century the perivolos wall was built and later the space between the wall and the rectangular structure was filled with stones. At the southern part and on top of this fill, the semi-circular feature was constructed. The traces of burnt material along with the aforementioned finds, suggest that it served mainly as an altar and it was the main point for a variety of rituals. The finds are dated to the Archaic period which is hardly represented by other finds from the research on Plakari hill. Since excavation in Plakari is not finished yet, future research could reveal more evidence regarding this period. A series of finds in this area, including broken pottery and animal bones suggest that it was used for sacrifices and food and drink consumption from the 6th to the late 4th centuries B.C.

The Classic period is represented by Building A and based on the finds its use seem to reach as far as the late 4th century. During this period the tradition of sacrificial meals was continued in Building A and its forecourt. Specifically by the late 5th century, according to the excavators, the Plakari hill sustained major changes in its layout, with most important the building of TW2 which seems to be contemporary to Building A.42 These rearrangements became obvious also by the excavations of the 2014 season. Specifically excavations at the W part of Terrace 1 showed that during the late 5th or early 4th century Terrace 1 was renovated with a rise of the surface that was achieved by the deposition of reused material over the former surface. This renovation affected also the existing buildings. Although only a small part of them was revealed, the construction of new foundations in one of the revealed walls showed that the building was adjusted to the general rise of the level of the surface.

The questions that arise regarding the function of Building A, concern the size and furnishing. As it will become obvious in the next chapter, where representative examples of dinning buildings will be presented, their size is usually bigger and their furnishing includes all the necessary equipment to accommodate a dinner (couches, benches etc.). Since Building A bares evidence for dinner preparation as well as for storing dinner equipment, the main question is to examine whether it fulfils the necessary requirements in order to accommodate ritual dinners in its interior.

39 Crielaard et al. 2014, 7 40 Crielaard et al. 2014,7 41_{Crielaard et al. 2014, 7} 42

(13)

Chapter 2 Sacrifice, ritual meals and hestiatoria

Introductory note

After having presented the results of the archaeological research regarding Building A of the Plakari hill it is necessary to present a short review of the results of the current research on the main subjects that concern ritual dinning. The necessity of this review is to show what research on the field has come with and what are the gaps that remain to be covered from the current and future research. The various aspects of Greek religion have been studied through almost all the available sources. Apart from excavation results Greek religious practices are attested on epigraphical and literary sources as well as vase paintings. Research has focused not only in a mere analysis of the various stages of the rituals but also on the reasoning and origins behind them as well as their anthropological aspects. Apart from ritual dinning and the buildings hosting this kind of activities will be given also in subjects directly related to it, like sacrifice. W. Burkert made extended studies on the ancient Greek religion especially for the practice of sacrifice and its anthropological dimensions43 and as it will become apparent it consists one of the main sources on the subject. As mentioned at the Introduction, thorough research on buildings serving for food and drink consumption of the Archaic and Classical period has been conducted by M.S. Goldstein based both on epigraphical and excavation results.44 B. Berquist made an interesting quantitative analysis on some functional aspects regarding the arrangement of the space in dinning buildings.45 In a rather theoretical level Schmitt-Pantel in her article ''Sacrificial meal and symposion'' challenges the division between the public and the sacred sphere represented by these two institutions, based mostly in iconographical representations and literary sources.46 Along with the general studies on the subject there are also studies on specific sites that form a valuable source of information like the one of N. Bookidis on ritual dinning at the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Corinth.47 A. Mazarakis-Ainian with his study on the EIA architecture represents of a valuable source of information for buildings serving for ritual dining during this period.48 At last, C. Borker in his book ''Festbankett und Griechische Architektur'' makes also a brief resume of the Greek formal dining room and its architecture but due to its short size it does not lists all the important examples.49

Sacrifice

In his extensive study on Greek religion published in 1985, Burkert notes that rituals are more important and instructive for the understanding of ancient religions than any other source.50 Sacrifice is the main ritual of Greek religion and is almost universal in all religions. According to Burkert it is a very old way of acting and communicating with the gods, 43 Burkert W., 1983, 1985, 1987 44 Goldstein, 1978 45 Berquist, 1990, 43 46 Schmitt-Pantel, 1990 47 Bookidis, 1985, 86 48 Mazarakis, 1997 49 Borker, 1983 50 Burkert, 1985, 54

(14)

keeping in contact with the divine through giving. He traces the origins of sacrifice to the situation before the discovery of agriculture.51 Hunting was the primary task of men and the main source of food that creates a situation of danger and anxiety of which man could not escape, as he would have to eat.52

This situation of anxiety and danger is reflected also in sacrifice, through the abandoning of a desired object preferably food, under a situation of threat or anxiety of pursuit by a stronger being.53

By bringing numerous examples originating from myth, nature and literary sources he demonstrates that the fight of man for food or other goods comes in contrast sometimes with his fight for self-preservation and the cost is to sacrifice something valuable to him or even to let go of his aim. This memory from his fight with stronger entities probably marks his relationship with the ultimate superior, god.54 Although it is not the aim of this research to examine the origins of sacrifice, Burkert's connection with hunting seems logical but the examples used to support it, since they originate mostly from the myth, do not create a direct connection with the origins of religion.

Concerning the reasons behind the continuation of this practice he considers the distribution of food in a group of individuals living together as well as the notion of reciprocity as the main ones. The practice of distribution of meat after the sacrifice resembles in a great deal the distribution of meat after the hunting or the distribution of booty after a successful war. In both occasions the shares are distributed respectively, with the portions divided not equally but according to power.55 Thus for a man sacrifice does not mean only to ask for a gift or thanking for one but in a human level participating in a community that is bounded by the ritual and shares the guilt of sacrifice. Additionally reciprocity, the expectation of a return of a gift and the obligation that is created, is something that, according to Burkert, existed in pre-capitalistic societies.56 At this point his arguments to support his views originate mostly from literary sources, like Homer, Herodotus and Aristophanes which consist of a rather firm base for the construction of his model. Although literary sources cannot be considered completely objective they consist reflections of societies once existed.

The actual practice of sacrifice this has been reconstructed through all the available sources (literal, epigraphical, iconographic, excavation results). Burkert in his invaluable research makes an extensive use of archaeological evidence, especially vase paintings. Van Straten in his article ''Greek sacrificial representations'' has made a statistic analysis of the preferable sacrificial species based on representations from sacrificial calendars, reliefs and vase paintings.57

Through these various representations we can reconstruct with great detail the stages of the ritual. As with most of the rituals there are always three separate and distinguishable stages, Firstly, the separation from everyday life. Since the process is far from miraculous the processes of cleaning, adorning, dressing in clean garments etc. creates a separation from the secular. The animal is led to the altar through a procession led by a maiden, the kanephoros, carrying a sacrificial basket on her head, in which the knife of the sacrifice is concealed underneath grains of barley or cakes (popana).58 The victim restrained by ropes tied to his legs is followed by a male or female flute player. Once the altar is reached the participants initiate the ritual by delimiting themselves from the profane through the washing of the hands 51 Burkert, 1987, 45-46 52 Burkert, 1987, 45-46 53 Burkert 1987, 45-46 54 Burkert, 1987, 45-46 55 Burkert 1987, 46-47 56 Burkert 1987, 46-47 57 Van Straten, 1987, 159 58

(15)

(cherniptesthai).59 The animal too is sprinkled with water. One of the most interesting aspects of the ritual is the effort to give the sense that the animal is voluntarily sacrificed. When water is spilled the animal jerks its head which is interpreted as a nodding that gives the permission to kill.60 Before the strike the sacrifice recites a vow, a prayer, an invocation or a wish.

Animal sacrifice is a ritualized slaughter followed by a meat meal. After the victim has been killed the particular parts destined for the god were taken out and burned in the fire. These are usually the inedible remains, like the pelvic or thigh bones, the tail etc. which on some cases are placed on the altar in just order where, as a symbolic act the animal is reconstituted.61 The inner organs especially the heart and liver (splachna) are the first to be roasted and once they have been eaten, the rest of the animal is cooked and the actual meal begins

The division of the portions, as Burkert admits, is something hard to explain. God receives almost nothing as the best portions are saved for the participants.62 Hesiod gives an explanation on this division based on the separation between mortal men depending on food and immortal gods satisfied just by a successful sacrifice63. This explanation seems logical

for our spiritual notion of gods but comes in contrast with the anthropomorphic gods of the ancient Greeks. Of course, gods have the privilege to take their share first as another princeps, in the same way the booty is distributed after a successful war. As for the division of meat between the humans, there were of course differences from time to time and according to the context. Burkert defines the common meal as: the basic situation that defines and constitutes a closed group in human society with clear structure of rank and honour, expressed through the sequence and quality of portions of meat assigned to each participant.64 Burkert suggests a rather unequal distribution while Schmitt-Pantel suggests that the sacrifice in the Archaic period had social implications, reflecting the isonomy of the society through the equal participation in the practice of communal eating.65 These two rather contradicting views occur, I believe, due to the fact that they refer to different periods of time. Burkert, without becoming explicit, refers to hunt gathering societies as well as to oligarchic societies of the Bronze and Iron Age. On the other hand Schmitt-Pantel refers to the beginnings of democratic society during the Archaic period. Additionally, Schmitt-Pantel tries very hard to eliminate the existing difference between the private meal restricted to specific people of a certain class, and the communal sacrificial meal, in order to prove the civic equality of the Archaic society.

Regarding the sacrificed animal, Van Straten's research is very informative. He uses as evidence representations of sacrifices, from sacrificial calendars, vase paintings and votive reliefs.66 Each of these categories depict a different reality regarding the preferences on the sacrificed animals. At the sacrificial calendars, which can be seen as the most objective sources as they refer to sacrifices that have been made, sheep predominates. Sacrificial reliefs which probably also depict sacrifices that have taken place, pigs are the ones that 59 Burkert, 1985, 56 60 Burkert, 1985, 56 61 Burkert, 1985, 57 62 Burkert, 1987, 46-47, 1985, 57 63 Burkert, 1985, 57 64 Burkert, 1987, 46 65 Schmitt-Pantel, 1990, 14 66 Van Straten, 1987,164-165

(16)

predominate. Among the three major categories of sacrificed species (oxen, sheep, pigs) the most valuable is the ox while the cheapest is the pig. As van Straten explains this is reasonable as calendars refer to communal sacrifices while reliefs to private so it is understandable that individuals would afford a cheapest animal than a community or a polis. Finally, the vase paintings give an ideal picture of a sacrifice as the workshop would like to produce items that would be attractive and would sell well.

Ritual meals

As stated above sacrifice is ritualized slaughter followed by a meat meal. Evidence of ritualized slaughter and communal consumption of meat can be traced, according to P. Halstead, even in Late Neolithic settlements of Northern Greece, like Makriyalos. In his research he notices differences between contexts of deposition in animal species, ages and sex ratios that point to different contexts of consumption.67 These variations accompanied by a different treatment of the carcass, the existence of structured deposits and fine tableware show a differentiation between commensality of greater and lesser formality.68 Nevertheless the chronological framework of the current research begins from the EIA when the dwellings of the local rulers served as places of ritual since communal religious practices had not been established yet. According to Mazarakis several buildings that have been recognized as rulers’ edifices hint that one of their functions were to serve certain religious ceremonies the most important being ritual dinning.69

For the Archaic and Classical period we have numerous sources especially representations of ritual meals. The problem that occurs from the study of ritual meals, as described by both Schmitt-Pantel and Goldstein is the terminology.70 There are various terms used to describe ritual meals that refer either to the type of building or in a specific context in which the meal took place. The problem that Schmitt-Pantel puts forward is that the Classical division between symposion and ritual meal, profane and sacred, is used to describe the Archaic polis, either by using only one of the terms as if they could not coexist or as if they succeeded one another.71 As mentioned above Schmitt-Pantel in her article tries to actually merge the terms symposion and ritual meal by attributing to the symposion some of the characteristics of the ritual meal and by eliminating its private character under the simplistic idea that the groups participating in the two institutions formulate the Archaic city.72 I will not go further in discussing the social implications of these institutions. Nevertheless it worth mentioning the dividing of ritual meals by Schmitt-Pantel, in three broad groups: the Dais, the Thalia and the symposion.73 The first two categories are collective practices that are organized by the astoi or a group. They are sacrificial banquets and consist the first group of terms used to describe sacrificial meals in the context of the cult of a divinity.74 For Schmitt-Pantel there is no distinguishable line, between the different types of meals, especially the one between sacred and profane. According to her, the religious element is obvious in all the

67_Ts

evelikidi, Halstead, Isaakidou, 2014,p.433 68

Tsevelikidi, Halstead, Isaakidou, 2014,p.433 69 Mazarakis,1997,287 70 Schmitt-Pantel, 1990, 15 71 Schmitt-Pentel, 1990, 15 72 Schmitt-Pantel, 1990, 24 73 Schmitt-Pentel, 1990, 22 74 Schmitt-Pentel, 1990, 22

(17)

collective practices whether it concerns the symposion, hospitality meal or sacrificial banquet. Her opinion is based mostly on the fact that she considers that both institutions participate equally to the formulation of the Archaic citizen and of the city life.75 I would suggest that despite the fact that these institutions are bounded by similar rules there are for sure distinctive lines that can be drawn between them.

Hestiatoria

As stated in the introduction in the following chapter I will present the most important examples of dinning buildings or rooms. I believe it is essential to first give a brief introduction based on the general studies that has been made on this type of buildings. One of the most extended and detailed ones is the one conducted by M.S. Goldstein ‘‘The setting of the ritual meals from 600-300 B.C which based on literary, epigraphical as well as excavation results, gives a very detailed image if the most important examples of this type of buildings.

One of the problems that he puts forward regarding the research of this type of buildings is, as in the case of ritual meals, the terminology. Goldstein finds it hard to define this type of buildings with one name.76 His research focuses not on the ideal terminology used in academic research but mainly on the term employed by the ancient Greeks. According to his research on literary sources the term hestiatorion appears frequently in Archaic and Classical literature but as a building found in a sanctuary is mentioned first by Herodotus while the word deipnitirion is reconstructed only once in an ancient inscription.77

According to Goldstein the discussion on sacred banquet halls is restricted in two ways. Firstly the lack of specific dates regarding the construction of these buildings which stands as an obstacle in the effort to reconstruct their constructional evolution.78 The second problem is the poor preservation of these buildings due to the excavation techniques of the beginning of the century which does not allow generalizations with regards to their furnishing.79 As for the representations of banquets on vases the problem according to the scholar lies on the fact that they are not very detailed regarding the architectural features. He admits nevertheless that they constitute a valuable source of information for items made of perishable materials and leave no traces like pillows and mattresses.80 Although the problems outlined by Goldstein are for sure present in the research on ancient Greek dining rooms, I believe that the problem in reconstructing the constructional evolution of these buildings lies in the fact that they were not developed during the centuries in a standardized architectural form, as it happened with the temple. The hestiatorion as a subsidiary building inside the sanctuary was adjusting to the development of the sanctuary around the temple, and it took various forms according to the space and the needs of each community.

Despite the difficulties Goldstein traced regarding the examination of these buildings, he could not avoid noticing some common characteristics like the general consistency on the arrangement of the dining halls where all the couches were set against the wall with the head

75 Schmitt-Pantel, 1990,24-5 76 Goldstein, 1978,294-5 77 Goldstein, 1978, 295 78 Goldstein, 1978,293 79 Goldstein, 1978, 293 80 Goldstein, 1978,293

(18)

on the right side.81 Berquist, who made an analysis of the interior arrangement of these buildings based only on material evidence, defined their characteristics more specifically, as having regular square shape, specific internal wall length, and a frequent multiplication of such rooms in paratactic rows from up to six to fifteen.82

Berquist in her article about sympotic space, defined the characteristics of the hestiatoria as having regular square shape and specific internal length, and are frequently multiplied in paratactic rows. Furthermore she divided the dining rooms in two large categories: the long rooms with entrance on the short side which are more popular at the Geometric and Archaic period and broad rooms with entrance at the long side more popular during the Classical and Hellenistic period.83 Additionally Berquist formulated two other categories based on their furnishing, namely the standard seven couch rooms or the eleven couch rooms.84 Based on measurements and evidence on the available examples she concluded that these two types form the main types of furnishing of dining rooms. The first type is the earliest as it is noted mainly in Archaic and Classic examples while the latter is more popular during the Classic and Hellenistic period.85 Nevertheless she suggests that for the Geometric and Early Archaic periods we cannot calculate the furnishing or the participants in terms of couches, as reclined dining was not introduced yet, but for the later periods was obligatory.86 As Goldstein noticed the construction of this type of buildings demands a certain degree of planning concerning the dimensions of the walls that would fit a certain number of couches as well as the placement of a single door off centre but adds that a certain degree of flexibility on the planning is possible.87 Although this categorization based on these strict measurements that have small differences between them is not probably the most efficient, the article of Berquist is very informative as it is based exclusively on archaeological evidence.

Regarding the rest of the furnishing Goldstein generalized the characteristics of various elements of the dining rooms based on excavation evidence and personal investigation of the sites. In the cases of tables that have been found, dated in the Late Classical period, according to the scholar they usually consist of a massive rectangular stone base with a marble top.88 Additionally, based on representations and excavation results, tables could be movable from perishable material or to be placed on the head of the couch that would be individual or would be shared by two adjoining couches.89 As for the rest of the accessories used in banqueting that are from perishable materials like pillows and mattresses we find information about them from the representations of banqueting scenes which may not be accurate regarding architectural features but are very informative regarding the equipment, as Goldstein considers. Bookidis in her study about the dining rooms of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Acrocorinth reveals a large variation of furnishings whose purpose is not always clear. The rooms are far from uniform as they have irregular numbers of couches,

81 Goldstein, 1978, 303 82 Berquist, 1990,43-4 83 Berquist, 1990, 44 84 Berquist, 1990, 43 85 Berquist, 1990, 43 86 Berquist, 1990,43-4 87 Goldstein, 1978, 303 88 Goldstein, 1978, 304 89 Goldstein, 1978, 304

(19)

various facilities like unexplained niches, while some bare facilities for cooking, washing sitting, and self-contained units etc.90

In general concerning the location of these buildings Goldstein observed that in their massive number they lie within the limits of the sanctuary and that there is no connection between the proximity of the building with the temple, with the importance of the activities taking place there.91 Only in the case of Corinth where we have a large number of dining rooms there was probably a separation between the ones reserved for the officials.

Berquist made also an interesting hypothesis about how functional are the dining rooms in terms of creating a proper sympotic atmosphere, suitable for a conversation. The long rooms according to her hypothesis would be divided in two functional groups separated by an imaginary line beginning from the entrance. Each group one in each side would consist of three sets of couches.92 Depending on the shape of the room and the location of the entrance the separation line is either diagonal creating groups of seven to nine couches or vertical in square rooms which creates two equal groups.93 At the long rooms with the entrance on the short side, she suggests a division in two groups one in the front and one in the back consisting of four to nine couches.94 Although, it is an interesting idea to try to formulate these kind of hypotheses, Berquist, I believe devotes a lot of time in reconstructing something like sympotic atmosphere that cannot be defined accurately and create a hypothesis that cannot be proved.

The above general characteristics, reveal a general coherency on the way Greeks were treating their formal meals by reclining on the left arm having the right one free to reach the nearest table. According to Berquist we are not entitled to assume that reclining at meals took place in the Geometric and Early Archaic periods.95 The custom of banqueting while reclining did not take place in Greece until the 7th century. Borker in his book about the architecture of dinning buildings suggests as a date for the introduction of this practice, 600 B.C and supports the classical notion that the habit was introduced from the Near East. It is in general considered as a definition of late Archaic reclining banquet as part of a counter-cultural tendency of the elite to distinguish themselves from common citizens by adopting goods and customs from the Near-East. Nevertheless other scholars disagree on whether we should view the reclining way of eating as an imported luxury. Tomlinson states at some point the idea that reclining while eating could as well originate from picnic eating at the nature in Greek festivals96, an idea that can be supported from representations of banqueting on about 200 vases of the Late Archaic and Early Classical period from Athens which depict people reclining on the ground. According to Topper who studied these vases, they prove that reclining banqueting is a common citizen's birth right and not an orientalising luxury.97

90_B ookidis, 1990, 88-89 91 Goldstein, 1978, 302 92 Berquist, 1990, 46-47 93 Berquist, 1990, 46-7 94 Berquist, 1990, 46-7 95 Berquist, 1990, 43 96 Tomlinson, 1984, 150 97 Topper, 2009, 3

(20)

Chapter 3 Buildings with evidence of ritual dining

Domestic buildings with evidence of ritual dinning

Nichoria (Messinia)

The opinions of the scholars regarding building IV-1 (Fig.22) found in the area of Nichoria in Messinia are rather diverse. According to the excavators, the building was occupied from the early 10th to the end of the 9th century and had two phases. Coulson thinks that initially, the building would have been rectangular and would have measured c. 10,50m in length and 7,00m in width (Unit IV-l).98 He bases his argument mainly on the fact that the apsidal wall does not bond with Wall A. The building follows an E-W direction and the main entrance is facing E. It comprises of a main room (Room I) and a shallow porch to the E. The entrance measures 1,36m wide, located south of the central axis and a subsidiary narrow entrance was located in the E extremity of the N wall.99 A block, roughly oblong in shape, was found removed from its original position just to the north-east of this door. On the west side of the opening there was a depression. Both features were interpreted as supports for posts which bordered the entrance.100 The interior dimensions of the main room are 8,00m by 6,00m. Approximately in the centre, there was a circular pit, filled with soft black soil and charcoal, evidently a hearth, and E of the hearth, a flat circular stone, 0.35m in diameter, was probably the base of a wooden column. Against the middle of the rear wall, a circular stone platform, 1,60m in diameter, was found. The surface of the platform was covered by a thin layer of carbonised material.101

Mazarakis opinion regarding building IV-1 is different. He believes that the building was all the way from the start apsidal.102 He suggests that the apsidal wall belongs to the initial building phase and that the interruption of the regular curve may be due to the repair of the N extremity of the apse in order to create a side door. He bases his argument on the fact that it is practically impossible to identify Wall D and Support-Wall X as the rear wall of the original building since Support-Wall X is not aligned with Wall D.103 During the second building phase a bench was presumably set along the E part of the S wall (Wall Ca).

The pottery associated with the first building phase is not numerous and can be dated between 975 and 850 B.C.104 Pottery constituted mainly of coarse ware, though about 40% was fine ware. Among the sherds two clay spindle whorls, two bronze rings, a bronze needle and an iron knife were found. A large number of animal bones was scattered over the floor that belonged to the first phase, some of which bore traces of bite and knife marks.105 The material connected with the second building phase are numerous and belong to the second 98 Mazarakis,1997, p.75 99 Mazarakis,1997, p.75 100 Mazarakis,1997, p.75 101 Mazarakis,1997, p.76 102 Mazarakis,1997, p. 77 103 Mazarakis,1997, p.77 104 Mazarakis,1997, p.78 105 Mazarakis,1997, p. 78

(21)

half of the 9th c. B.C. As in the earlier building period a considerable amount of coarse ware was unearthed from the apsidal compartment, including fragments of pithoi.106 The same compartment revealed: an iron knife, a stone celt, a lead net-sinker, a lead button or wheel, a bronze shield boss or phalaron, an axe head of iron and a clay whorl.107 In the main room, ten clay whorls, a bronze fingering, a small iron tool and a bronze bar were found. Large quantities of animal bones were found on the floor of Rooms I and III.108 A concentration of animal bones mixed with charcoal deserves special mention, for it was located immediately to the W of the paved circle and looked as if it had been swept from this structure.

Based on the material discovered and the prominent location of the building, Mazarakis suggests that it was probably a ruler's dwelling that served also religious purposes of a domestic character.109 The evidence for sacrifices and ritual meals lie mostly in the platform that probably served as an altar and the numerous animal bones. According to Mazarakis we cannot speak of public ritual activities that would require the altar to be located outside the building.110

Zagora

A building from the settlement of Zagora in Andros which lies approximately in the middle of the plateau onto the central open space of the settlement was considered by the excavators as a chieftain's dwelling (Fig.23). The reasons for this interpretation were basically its prominent position inside the settlement, its considerable size as well as its proximity to an open air cult place located a few meters SE of the current building. Additionally, the existence of a large hearth, a formal dining room and the finds from the various rooms, supported this identification.111

The residence consists of five rooms which flank on the north, east and west sides of a courtyard (H21) and received its actual plan in the second half of 8th century B.C.112 Of interest for the current study is room H22 which bears evidence for ritual dinning taking place there. In Room H22 five floors were recognized. A bench rested on top of floor 5 and therefore it should be regarded contemporary or slightly later than the laying of that floor.113 The stone base for the wooden post roughly in the centre of the room was also associated with this level. Animal bones were also present. The pottery belonged mostly to the LG II period and included only fine wares: there was a large number of plates (more than 10 were associated with the final floor), hydriai and numerous drinking vessels.114 Among the rare coarse finds was a tripod tray and three lids. The excavators are convinced that from a general purpose room, associated with the lower three floors, this compartment was turned into a dining room.115 A fill separated the second floor (4) from the first. It is a levelling fill which indicates that there stood a house in the area before the construction of Room H22.

106 Mazarakis,1997, p. 78 107 Mazarakis,1997, p. 78 108 Mazarakis,1997, p. 78 109 Mazarakis,1997, p. 79 110 Mazarakis,1997, p. 79 111 Mazarakis,1997, p. 175 112 Mazarakis,1997, p. 171 113 Mazarakis,1997, p. 173 114 Mazarakis,1997, p. 173 115 Mazarakis,1997, p.173

(22)

Cult buildings with evidence of ritual dinning and dining rooms

Cyclades

Tsikalario, Complex B (Naxos)

The ancient cemetery of Tsikalario is situated at the site of Alonakia near the modern village of Tsikalario. Tsikalario consists actually of a MG necropolis where about 40-50 circular tumuli have been discovered. Several buildings inside this necropolis have been traced, most of them clustered together so they consist of complexes of rooms.116 Our interest is focused on Complex B (Fig.24) situated SW of the southernmost tumuli. The rooms of this complex can be divided in three units which are reached by different entrances. Of interest for the current study is the complex consisting of rooms 7-13, which are entered from the south and seem to be a later addition to the complex.117 In particular rooms 7 and 8 bore characteristics which indicate that ritual dinning was taking place there. They are both provided with a central hearth and the floor was covered by a thick layer of burnt material.118 Additionally at the NW corner of room 7 a protruding stone was shaped as a bench with its S extremity to be shaped as an omphalos.119

Regarding the general use of these buildings various opinions have been expressed, in relation with the nearby necropolis. Several scholars relate complexes A, B, and C with funerary and chtonian cults, among them Zapheiropoulou, the excavator.120 Other scholars like Drerup, Coldstream and Kourou suggest that the complex of rooms B were a settlement complex. Mazarakis rejects Drerup's opinion according to which we are dealing with a settlement as its size is too small compared to the size of the necropolis. He suggests convincingly that the buildings had a religious use, with Complex B constituting the place where the rituals in honour of the dead would have taken place.121 Among the material unearthed from the rooms of complex B are fragments of plain pithoi and at least one relief vessel which could have been used for cult purposes, including honouring the cemetery's dead.122 Rooms 7 and 8 would have served, according to Mazarakis suggestion, for ritual dinning. The dating of the complex is very difficult to be determined, but according to Mazarakis, it cannot be excluded that they were built during the MG or LG period.123 Zapheiropoulou, the excavator, suggests that they were in use maybe as late as the Archaic period.

Temple II (Iria, Naxos)

The site of Iria at Naxos, situated 3 km S of the town of Naxos is an important cult place attested by successive use from 800 B.C. until approximately 570 B.C. The beginning of the cult at Iria is marked by an open air shrine of the Mycenaean period focused around a stone lekane which was found below the floor the Archaic temple.124 Around and beneath the 116 Mazarakis,1997, p. 191 117 Mazarakis,1997, p. 192 118 Mazarakis,1997, p.193 119 Mazarakis,1997, p. 193 120 Charalambidou, 2008-9, p.59 121 Mazarakis,1997, p.193 122 Charalambidou, 2008-9, p.59 123 Mazarakis,1997, p.193 124 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.271,277

(23)

lekane sherds of typical Mycenaean pottery were found especially drinking vessels. This evidence could not be associated with any architectural remains. The intervening phases between this period and the first structures (10th-8th c.) are represented by scattered deposits of pottery from the Sub-Mycenaean to the Protogeometric period.125

Four successive temples were erected at the site but our interest will be focused on the second one, Temple II (Fig.25) which replaced the first temple around 730 B.C. It has to be noted here that the builders of the first temple took into consideration the former shrine and placed the temple exactly on top of it. Above the lekane two rectangular holes were interpreted as imprints of an offering table.126 Temple II was built directly on top of the previous one and was larger in size, measuring 16.50m by 11.00. Three internal colonnades consisting of 15 wooden columns on marble slabs divided its interior into three naves.127 The building material of the walls is granite but marble is also used for certain parts like the bases of the columns. An eschara was placed approximately in the same position as the earliest wooden offering table of Temple I. A layer of white inclusions consisting of ash and animal bones, which were burnt over and over again until they became white, was dispersed around the hearth covering the marble slabs.128 The floor was also full of animal bones both burned and unburned.129 Alongside the W wall of the building, a row of stones set on the floor was discovered which was interpreted as a bench that was probably running across the walls. This Naxian temple is one of the first examples of the monumentalization of the temple. In this case it is expressed through its considerable length and the early use of marble.130

Pottery from this second phase is abundant and includes Naxian skyphoi and imitations of Corinthian kotylai.131 This second oikos Iria received also considerable amount of metal offerings like fibulae and amulets.132 The arrangement of the building along with the finds attests that sacrifices and ritual dinning ware taking place there until approximately 680 B.C when it was replaced by Temple III.133

The importance of ritual meals for the cult at Iria is evident also from the fact that after the destruction of the third temple, the cult was continued around a clay hearth installed for cooking.134 The third temple was destroyed probably during the third quarter of the 7th c. but nevertheless people continued to gather offerings around the clay hearth that existed nearby. Additionally the pottery of Iria in general includes many cooking wares as well as open shapes like kraters and drinking vessels like skyphoi, kantharoi, cups and kotylai.135

Apart from the second temple, evidence of ritual dining at Iria is plentiful. Near the early propylon of the sanctuary an apsidal building was revealed, which due to the successive layers of burnt material and the abundance of cooking and drinking wares was interpreted as an hestiatorion.136 Its flat roof was supported by wooden posts on marble slabs. Its interpretation was based also on the presence of two square rooms that frame the Classical 125 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.272 126 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.272 127 Mazarakis,1997, p.190 128 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.272 129 Mazarakis,1997, p.190 130 Lambrinoudakis, 1991,p.184 131 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.272 132 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.274 133 Mazarakis,1997, p. 190 134 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.275 135 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.277 136 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.277

(24)

propylon, which are supposed to be the successors of this first hestiatorion.137 The Archaic hestiatorion was probably in use during the whole 6th c. It has to be noted at this point that the first Archaic hestiatorion would have thrones instead of couches, in a period when reclined dining has already been introduced.138

Temple of Athena (Koukounaries, Paros)

Among the examples presented in this chapter the temple at Koukounaries (Fig.26) bears surprising similarities with Building A of Plakari and its forecourt in terms of architecture and various cult installations. This fact is impressive if we consider the great chronological gap between Building A and the temple of Athena. Regarding the dating of the temple Mazarakis considers it difficult to be determined accurately since the original floor was completely destroyed and replaced by later ones that were in use as long as the 4th c. B.C.139 Based on the pottery the excavator dated the temple at around 700 B.C. Regarding the temenos the successive layers brought to light evidence that allows to determine its use since the EIA period or even earlier.140

The Temple at Koukounaries is a rectangular building measuring 9.50m in length and 6.40m in width with an entrance at the middle of the E wall.141 The structure could be characterized as elaborate as it makes use of schist stones for the walls, it has a monolithic threshold and a marble base axially placed in order to support a wooden column. Probably another base would have existed further to the E. Along the inner face of the N and E walls runs a bench consisting of five courses of schist slabs which appears to be an addition of the 7th c. B.C.142 In the middle of the cella a bin like structure consisting of upright slabs was found and immediately to its S a wall which appears to be earlier than the bin structure. The temenos of the temple is roughly square in shape and bordered by a wall along its N and E sides. At about the middle of the N wall stood a rectangular platform that can be identified as an altar.143 In a lower level a semi-circular structure was found identified as an earlier altar ante-dating the construction of the temenos wall and the temple. In the same area to the S a wall and a schist bin were discovered, with the latter being identified as later as a grave of the SMyc period, something that Mazarakis considers unlikely.144 The excavation of the temenos also brought to light layers of ashes including animal bones.

In general the interior of the temple and the temenos did not brought to light any significant finds. The great bulk of offerings was discovered in a votive deposit which was actually an accumulation of debris of the temple and its surroundings rather that a stratified deposition after successive cleanings of the sanctuary.145 The material consists of large quantities of pottery and lamps (including lekanai, amphorae, kylikes and miniature skyphoi), loom weights, terracotta figurines, the majority representing a seated female divinity wearing a polos. An interesting discovery are several clay plaques pierces for suspension.146 Another 137 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.275,277 138 Simantoni-Bournia,2002, p.277 139 Mazarakis,1997, p. 187 140 Mazarakis,1997, p.187 141 Mazarakis,1997, p.185 142 Mazarakis,1997, p. 185 143 Mazarakis,1997, p.186 144 Mazarakis,1997, p.186 145 Mazarakis,1997, p.188 146 Mazarakis,1997, p.188

The architectural history of the hestiatoria and the case of Building A of Plakari