Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T06:05:09.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Levantine Elements in the Sacred Architecture of the Aegean at the Close of the Bronze Age*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Ora Negbi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two cult structures from Mycenae and from a sanctuary recently discovered at Phylakopi, on the island of Melos, shed a new light on the sacred architecture of the Aegean at the close of the Bronze Age. This paper suggests that the edifices of both these sites should be classified as popular places of worship. This suggestion is based on their location, layout and size as well as on their foreign architectural affinities. The Phylakopi sanctuary, located against the fortification wall of the town, consists of a major temple to which a subsidiary shrine is attached. The pair of adjacent structures located on the lower terrace of the acropolis of Mycenae, are of approximately the same size, presumably possessing the same religious status. The three edifices bear several asymmetrical features, such as indirect entrances and corner platforms that have no parallels elsewhere in the Aegean. These features are diagnostic to a special type of Canaanite temples that prevailed in maritime posts and harbour sites. There are indications, however, that in spite of the foreign architectural affinities, the cult practised in the Mycenae structures and in the major temple of Phylakopi was distinctively Aegean. On the other hand, architectural and contextual data seem to support the assumption that the subsidiary shrine of Phylakopi was reserved for foreign cult, practised by Canaanite traders.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 83 , November 1988 , pp. 339 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For general plan of these sites, see Kontorlis, K.P., Mycenaean Civilization (Athens 1985), 40, 62Google Scholar; Cult 390 fig. 2.1.

2 Cult 402.

3 This figure shows the architectural remains of the last phase of LH IIIC, see also Kilian, K., ‘Zeugnisse mykenischer Kultaüsubung in Tiryns’ Sanctuaries 53 abb. 2 (LHIIIB2) and abb. 8 (second phase of LH IIIC).Google Scholar

4 For the plan of these shrines and their contents, see ibid. 53–7 abb. 4–7, 9.

5 Cult 401–2, 405–6.

6 French, E., ‘Cult places at Mycenae’, Sanctuaries 41—4 figs. 1–2.Google Scholar

7 Ibid.; Mylonas, G.E., ‘The cult centre of Mycenae’ Proceedings of the British Academy 67 (1982) 307–20Google Scholar; Mycenaeans 49–61.

8 The upper complex could presumably be reached from the Lion Gate as well, see Mycenaeans 61.

9 Cult 71–87, 365–85 tables 3.1, 3.3.

10 Ibid. 391.

11 Ibid. 390.

12 French, op.cit. (see n.6 above) 44 fig. 3.

13 Ibid. 44–5 Figs. 5–6; Mycenaeans 49, 59–61.

14 On the layout of this shrine, see Kilian, contra van Leuven, J.C., ‘Problems and methods of Prehellenic naology’ Sanctuaries 26Google Scholar; Mainland 143 fig. 2:5; Mycenaeans 47, and also n. 21 below.

15 Mycenaeans 49; The pairing of Tsountas' House Shrine with Lord William Taylour's Temple, as suggested by van Leuven, Mainland 141 fig. 2:2, has neither topographical nor spatial justifications.

16 See Mycenaeans 49, 55, 61; French, op. cit. (see n. 6 above) 45, 48–9 fig. 1.

17 Mycenaeans 49, 55; Prof. French has told me that she feels as if the more important of the two appears to have been the House of Frescoes. It seems likely that both structures had the same degree of importance, but the cult practised in them was different, see below, IV:A.

18 Mainland 141, 144–5; Cult 407–9, 412; Cyprus 94–8 (floor III)

19 Qasile 21–4, 66–8 figs. 6–11 (Strata XI–X).

20 See n. 18–19 above. It is noteworthy that Temple 2 from Kition originally belonged to a pair of detached temples (Temples 2–3), dating to LCII C (Floor IV), see Cyprus 94–8 fig. 72; At the first period of its construction Temple 2 was the major building, but during the following periods of its use it became the minor building of a new complex (Temples 1–2). On the sequence of the sacred-area at Kition, see also Negbi, O., ‘The Climax of Urban Development in Bronze Age Cyprus’ RDAC (1986) 105–6.Google Scholar

21 Mainland 143–3, fig. 2; van Leuven, op. cit. (see n. 14 above) 15 fig. 7. For the suggestion of pairing the megaron on the acropolis of Mycenae with the ‘Throne Room’ and the megaron of Pylos – with the north-east shrine, see van Leuven, op. cit. 24: #49, 57; Mainland 143 fig. 2: 4–5. The pairing of the major and minor megara of Tiryns has been challenged by Kilian, contra van Leuven, op. cit. 24:# 52; 26. The assumption that royal cult was practised in the palace complex of Pylos is also controversial, see Säflund, G., ‘Sacrificial Banquets in the Palace of Nestor’ OpAth 13 (1980) 238Google Scholar; Mycenaeans 47; Cult 402.

22 See Dunayevski, E. and Kempinski, A., ‘The Megiddo Temples’ ZDPV 89 (1973) 167–72 figs. 4, 9Google Scholar; and Temples 11–8, 21–3.

23 Courtois, J.-C., ‘Ras Shamra’ in Cazelles, H. and Feuillet, A. (eds.), Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, Tome IX-Fascicules 52–3 (Paris 1980) 1195–7Google Scholar; Margueron, J., in Beyer, D. (ed.), Emar: un royaume sur l'Eupkrate au temps des Hittites (cahiers Musée d'art et d'essai no. 9, Paris 1982) 8Google Scholar fig. 6.

24 On this pair of temples, see Cyprus 94—8 (Floor III); Qasile, 67–8 fig. 15: L,M; and also n. 18, 20 above.

25 Mazar has pointed out that the clustering of major and minor temples is rare in the Near East, see Qasile 66.

26 Cult 407–9.

27 On the architectural sequence of this shrine, see Ibid. 73–89; and n. 5 above.

28 Mycenaeans 49–50 fig. 24.

29 The exposed rock of the Alcove was concealed by a wall, but since the Room with the Idols was built on a higher terrain than the Room with the Platforms, there was no other way but to build the stairs that led to the former room at the farmost corner of the latter room, see ibid. 50, 52, and French, op. cit. (n. 6 above) 45. Prof. French has told me that the need to lay the row of columns in alignment with the steps was probably due to statical reasons, since the eastern wall of the Temple that abutted the terrace was not strong enough, in her opinion, in order to support the roof.

30 A new platform was installed off the corner in the last phase of its existence (fig. 4: Phase 3c). On the architectural sequence of this shrine, see Cult, 72–7 and n.9 above.

31 Mycenaeans 55, 58–9 Plate 32; On the function of the eastern room designated as Shrine, see French, op. cit. (see n. 6 above) 45; Cult 408. I was told by Prof. French that a bench, which according to Lord William Taylour was attached to the southern wall of the Room with the Fresco and terminated at the platform, is not actually a bench, but a later architectural element that did not belong to the original layout of the room.

32 On the earliest temple (Stratum XII), see (Qasile 13–20 figs. 4–5; On the development of the three successive temples (Strata XII–X), dating from the mid 12th to the late 11th centuries BC, see also ibid. 9–10 figs. 13–4 and n. 19 above.

33 It is noteworthy that in both sites the subsidiary shrines do not belong to the original phase of construction. For the two successive shrines of Qasile, see n. 19, 32 above. On the sequence of the East Shrine of Phylakopi, see n. 9 above.

34 Corner platforms are presumed to have existed in the LH IIIC House Shrine at Asine, and a Philistine chapel recently discovered at Tel Miqne-Ekron on the southern plain of Israel, see Hägg, R., ‘The house sanctuary at Asine revisited’ Sanctuaries 93–4 figs. 1, 3Google Scholar; and Cult 419. The Philistine shrine of Tel Mikne-Ekron has been shown by Prof. Trude Dothan in her paper delivered at the Athens congress.

35 For Temple 3, dating to the 13th century BC (floor IV), see n. 20 above; for Temple 5, founded in the 12th century BC (Floor III), see n. 24 above and also Qasile 67 fig. 15: M. For later, Iron II shrines with ‘bent-axis’ approach from Lachish and Sarepta, see Qasile 66 and Temples 78.

36 See Qasile 62–68; and J.D. Muhly, ‘The Role of the Sea Peoples in Cyprus during the LC III Period, in Karageorgis, V. and Muhly, J.D. (eds.), Cyprus at the Close of the Late Bronze Age (Nicosia 1984) 48Google Scholar, contra Schäfer, J., ‘Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis Mykenischer Kultbauten zu Tempibauten in Kanaan’ AA (1983) 551–3.Google Scholar

37 Qasile 62–73 fig. 15; and more recently Mevorakh 31–6 fig. IVb.

38 Wright, G.R.H., ‘Pre-Israelite Temples in the Land of Canaan’ PEQ 103 (1971) fig. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar: B, E; and recently. Mevorakh 4–9.

39 Ibid. 28–30 figs. 23–5.

40 On the raised platform in Bronze Age temples from the Near East, see for example Matthiae, P., Ebla An Empire Reconsidered (London 1977) 125–30 figs. 27–8Google Scholar; Parrot, A., ‘Les fouilles de Mari, Quatrième campagne (Hiver 1936–37)’ Syria 19 (1938) 21–7 fig. 13Google Scholar; Yadin, Y., Hazor (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, London 1972) 102–4Google Scholar; and also Temples 60–1; Qasile 68–9. On bench-shrines in Crete and Mainland Greece, see van Leuven, op. cit. (see n. 14 above) 14; and Cult 395, 397, 409.

41 Wright, op. cit. (see n. 38 above) 25 fig. 3; C-E; Temples 80–8 figs. 15–8 and also Mevorakh figs. IVa: 1,4; IVb: 2, 9–11. Mazar has noticed that this phenomenon is also attested in Temple 5 at Kition, see Qasile 67 fig. 15:M and n. 24 above.

42 Mevorakh 36.

43 It is noteworthy that at Tell Abu Hawam, as at Tel Mevorakh the adyton is located in the corner of the cella. The same phenomenon is attested in 13th–12th century temples from Cyprus, such as Temple 2 at Kition and the ‘Sanctuary of the Ingot God’ at Enkomi, see (Qasile 64–5 fig. 15: G, N; Mevorakh 31–3 fig. IVb: 6–8 and n. 20, 34 above. On the strong Near Eastern impact attested in the temples of Kition, see also Qasile 66.

44 Mycenaeans 55–6 figs. 32, 34–5; French, op. cit. (n. 6 above) 45 fig. 13; Cult 419.

45 Long, C.R., The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus (SIMA XLI, Göteborg 1974) 65–8 figs.Google Scholar 86–7, the scene on the right; Cult 24–25.

46 I am indebted to Dr Nanno Marinatos for this information.

47 Mycenaeans 55.

48 Ibid. 49; On the terracotta snakes from the former and the magnificent ivory lion and male head from the latter, see ibid. 52, 56 figs. 28, 36–7. It is interesting to note, however, that by contrast to the Temple only one female figure was found in the House of Frescoes, see ibid. 58 figs. 38–9.

49 See French, E., ‘Mycenaean figures and figurines, their typology and function’ Sanctuaries 173–7.Google Scholar

50 For the contents of the Room with the Idols of the Temple and rooms A–B of the West Shrine, see Mycenaeans 50–1; Cult 112–7; The only clay figure recorded from the House of Frescoes was found in the corner of the Shrine, which presumably served as a storeroom, see n,. 31, 48 above.

51 On the repertory of these platforms, see Cult 109–10: Assemblage B (Phase 2b), Mycenaeans 50.

52 Mycenaeans 53.

53 On the figures found on the former platform, see n. 51 above; on those assigned to the latter platform, see Cult 105–7: Assemblage A. It is noteworthy, however, that there is no decisive difference in the context of platforms used in the shrine after the collapse (fig. 4: Phases 3b–3c). Male, female and animal figures seem to have been placed on the north-west platform, while female and animal figures are recorded from the north-east platform, see ibid. 131–3, 135–8: Assemblages G, J, K.

54 Mainland 145.

55 Cult 117, 119: Assemblage D. However, here as in the West Shrine, the context became mixed after the collapse (fig. 4: Phases 3b–3c), when human figures are also recorded from the East Shrine, see ibid. 129–34.

56 Macfarlane, C., ‘Analysis of Join Linkages’ in Cult 455–6.Google Scholar

57 Cult 302–3, 305–6 figs. 8.2, 8.4.

58 Ibid. 304 fig. 8.3.

59 See French, E.. ‘The Figures and Figurines’ in Cult 223–30.Google Scholar

60 Cult 415; and also French, op. cit. (see n. 59 above) 211–22; Hägg, op. cit. (see n. 34 above), 93 fig. 2: and Kilian, op. cit. (n. 3 above) abb. 6–7.

61 For an up-to-date review on figurines of the Smiting God found overseas, including those recorded from Mycenae and Tiryns, see Muhly, J.D., ‘Bronze Figurines and Near Eastern Metalwork’ IEJ 30 (1980) 159Google Scholar; and Cult 306–10, 424–5. For a recent study showing the impact of metal figurines from the Levant on the terracotta male figures of Phylakopi, see Muhly, P.M., ‘The Male Terracotta Figurines from Phylakopi’ in Sixth International Congress of Aegean Prehistory: Summary of Papers (Athens 1987) 110.Google Scholar