¹ Travels in Crete 1 (1837) 145–146. See also Pendlebury, J., The Archaeology of Crete (1971) 313 maps 17 and 18.Google Scholar

² Powell, Dilys, The Villa Ariadne (1982) 11.Google Scholar Cf also JHS 49, 1929, 226; BSA 30. Sess. 1928–1930, 1932, 268.

³ Among them there was also a worked limestone, most probably a funerary cippus, I think of Phoenician form, with which I am dealing in a forthcoming article.

⁴ These dates will have to be reassessed on further consideration of the available material, especially from protogeometric, classical and Hellenistic periods.

⁵ To date a corner of a building has been unearthed (See Fig. 4 left).

⁶ Cf. e.g. Vergina, , Ανδϱὸνιϰος, Μ., Βεϱγὶνα Ι, Τó νεϰϱοταφεῖον τῶν τύμΒων (1969) 10 ff. pls. 8, 9.Google ScholarIalysos, , Gates, Ch., From Cremation to Inhumation, 1983, 19f.Google Scholar 28f and Siderospilia, Prinias, (infra n.10), Figs. 476, 477.

⁷ See Fig. 8 to the left of the skull. Their motifs descend from a type of jewellery known to have existed on Crete from Minoan times (see R. Seager (infra n.24) 72 Figs. 41–42 and Alexiou, S.–Platon, N.–Guanella, H., Das antike Kreta (1967) 20Google Scholar Fig. 37 especially the one in the middle. Cf. also Bosanquet, R.B., Excavations at Praesos I, BSA, 8, 1901–1902, 243 Fig. 12Google Scholar, 244 without cuttings on the rosettes leaves endings) but they resemble more the 7th c. golden rosettes jewellery from Rhodes (see Hampe-Simon (infra. n.90) 209, 302 Fig. 322) – although without the filligran – and especially the earrings of the 7th c. from Melos now in the British Museum.

⁸ For the first possibility see Wartke, R.B., Iran-Urartu, Vam Kleine Schriften, 7 (1987) 23–24, Fig. 12Google Scholar for the second R. Seager, supra n.7.

⁹ Hall, E.H., Excavations in eastern Crete, Vrokastro (1914) 154–172.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See recently Creta antica, Cento anni di archeologia Italiana(1884–1984), 1984, 238ff Figs. 444, 467 with bibliography.

¹¹ See most recently Lambrinoudakis, V.K., Veneration of Ancestors on Geometric Naxos in Hägg, R. – Marinatos, N. – Nordquist, G.C., Early greek cult practice (1988) 238.Google Scholar See also my critical distance from some of his interpretations infra n.24 and 59.

¹² For the family interpretation, see Bosanquet, R.C. – Dawkins, R.M. in BSA, Suppl. 1 (1923), 151–152.Google Scholar Later Kurtz, D.C. – Boardman, J., Greek burial customs, 1971, 56Google Scholar, 349 and most recently V. Lambrinoudakis, supra n.11.

¹³ See accordingly Fig. 9 right and left. Actually trench A, which to my view is the oldest one and can be dated in the protogeometric period, seems to be a mixture of a shaft grave with a (later?) built tomb, partially lined with masonry (see the examples of the L Cypriote III graves with inhumations and cremations (Kaloriziki T 40) inside, brought together by Niklasson, K.–Sönnerby, in Aegaeum 1, Thanatos, Liège 1986 (1987) 219ff.).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Paris, Louvre, G. 197 cf. Simon, E., Die griechische Vasen (1976), 107–108 Fig. 133Google Scholar, dated 500/490 BC.

¹⁵ E.g. Bell crater in Villa Giulia 11688 in fragments (see Clairmont, Chr., AJA 57, 1953, 85–89 pl. 45. fig. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; pl. 46 fig. 2 or, even better the crater of Santa Agatha dei Goti, Metzger, H., Les représentations dans la ceramique attique du IV^em siècle (1951) I, 211.II, pl. XXII, 1Google Scholar and most recently Vollkommer, R., Herakles in the art of classical Greece (1988) 32 and 35 fig. 45.Google Scholar Also similar although not always identical, appears to be the construction of the pyre on which Alkmene seats (See Trendall, A.D.–Webster, T.B.L., Illustrations of Greek Drama (1971) IIIGoogle Scholar, 3–8 and recently Gogos, S., ÖJh 55, 1984, 32 Fig. 3).Google Scholar

¹⁶ E.g. on the Analatos protoattic hydria and amphora; E. Simon (Supra n.14), 39–41 dated accordingly 700 and 690 BC.

¹⁷ See Αεμπέση, Αγγ., Οι στῆλες τοῦ Πϱινιά (1976) 21–22Google Scholar, Plates 2–3, Stele A1. See also the dress of the dead woman in the Alianelli tomb 286 (Nafissi, in Magna Grecia, II Mediterraneo, le metropoleis e la fondazione delle colonia I (1985) 197 figs. 287–288).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Significantly, fruits which would have been picked in autumn, a period in which the cremation to which they belong would have been fired. For other parallels of burial figs and grapes from geometric cremations on Naxos see Zapheiropoulou, Ph. in ADelt Chronica, 21, 2, 1966, 393.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Smashed vessels are often associated with offerings to the dead. See most recently also V. Lambrinoudakis (supra n.11) 240.

²⁰ These drinking vessels and a kalathos which belongs to the same group and was also found slightly burnt, may well belong to a ritual which took place immediately after the completion of the cremation.

²¹ For funerary rites generally: Stengel, P., Opferbrauche der Griechen, 1910, 1 ffGoogle Scholar; Eitreim, S., Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer, 1915, 1ffGoogle Scholar; Andronikos, M. in Archeol. Homerica 1968, 127ff.Google Scholar Kurtz-Boardman (supra n.12) 65–67 (geometric period), 142–161 and notes on 359–60. For funerary meals see Malten, L., RM. 38–39, 1923–1924, 300ff.Google Scholar and recently: Hägg, R., Funerary Meals in the geometric necropolis at Asine? in the Greek Renissance of the 8th c. BC. Tradition and Innovation Proc. of the 2nd Intern. Symp. at the Swedish Institut, Athens 1981, Stockholm (1983), 189–194.Google Scholar For additional constructions discussed see V. Lambrinoudakis (supra n.11) 239 and fn.11.

²² I would like to express my warm thanks to Dr Ph. McGeorge who examined the material carefully and wrote the results. I hope our collaboration will continue as the anthropological material of the cemetery and especially from the pyres seems to be very interesting.

²³ Chalopota stream flows about a hundred metres away to the west of the cremation area.

²⁴ Since there was no evidence of a construction of any kind – as those found in the enclosures of the geometric necropolis at the Metropolis area on Naxos cf. V. Lambrinoudakis (supra n.11), 238–, we assumed that this layer was a kind of sealing of the pyre after its quenching. A kind of flat roof consisting, probably, of wood, reed and clay is also assumed for some of the rectangular EM–MM enclosures in Mochlos (See Seager, R.B., Explorations in the Island of Mochlos (1912) 46Google Scholar and Pini, I., Beiträge zur minoischen GräberKunde (1968) 7 and 8).Google Scholar

²⁵ The way the amphora of trench KK was covered and the way the stones surrounded it bears distinct similarities to the so called ‘tombe singole a pithos’ nos. 20, 24 and 27 at Arkades described and illustrated by Levi, D., ASAtene 10–12, 1927–1929, 100ff.Google Scholar figs. 75 and 77. The most important result in my view is that the cremated bones inside the Eleuthernian amphora were very clean, obviously having been carefully separated from the ash and the charcoal of the pyre.

²⁶ Especially 23, 28–34. 111–112. 120. 127–128. 139. 163–170. 237–241. 255–256.

²⁷ Cf. Palaepaphos – Skales (infra n.39) 89.

²⁸ The type might have been common in central and eastern Crete. Analogous examples are known, although infrequently published, from Knossos (cf. Hartley, M., Early Greek Vases from Crete, BSA 31, 1930–1931, 79 fig. 10 no. 49Google Scholar, Fortezza, Coldstream, J.N., Geometric Pottery (1968) 247Google Scholar pl. 55 and Palaikastro (cf. Dawkins, R.M., Excavations at Palaikastro II, BSA 9, 1902–1903, 320 fig. 20,1.Google Scholar See also recently M. Tsipopoulou, Γεωμετριϰή ϰαι ανατολιζουσα ϰεραμειϰή της Ετεοϰρητιϰής περιοχής (1987) in press.

²⁹ So, for example, the piece of a big amphora (Fig. 17) with the known technique, white on black from Knossos (see Coldstream, J.N. in Antichitá Cretesi, Studi in onere di D. Levi II (1974) 163 pl. 15,4.Google Scholar Also a white on black fragment of pottery decorated with griffins was found in the Eleuthernian cemetery.

³⁰ A sherd found in trench KK most probably represents a man and a galloping horse. It is from an ‘urna’ like the one found by Levi in the cemetery at Arkades now in Heraklion Museum (Inv. no. 8120). See Creta antica (supra n.10) 260 fig. 502.

³¹ So far Athenian and Corinthian MG/LG, Protocorinthian (Fig. 18) and Corinthian pottery is surprisingly much to be found in the excavated area of the cemetery at Eleutherna, which seems not to be the case – as far as I know today – in Knossos (See Coldstream, J.N., Geometric Greece, (1977), 85, 168ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gift exchange in the 8th c. BC in R. Hägg's Greek Renaissance (supra n.21) 201–207).

³² See infra n.36 and 39–40.

³³ On the northern coast, about 9–10 kms away from Eleutherna, almost 3 hours walk by the more direct paths and roads for a modern individual.

³⁴ Even though it has not been accepted that they do play dices (see Buchholz, H.-G. in Laser's, S., Sport und Spiel, Arch. Hom. T (1987) 126ff.Google Scholar

³⁵ Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, Inv. no. 16757 see E. Simon (supra n. 14) 86–87, Fig. 74 (XXV). Also recently Schefold, K., Homer und die Erzählungsstil der archaischen Kunst in ΕΙΔΩΛΟΠΙΙΑ 1982 (1985) 20–21 fig. 3Google Scholar (the analogous theme on an amphora in Basel) and supra n.34, 126ff, Pl. V,8.

³⁶ See Dikaios, P., AA 1963, 126ff.Google Scholar 147 Fig. 15 and Karageorghis, V., Zypern, in Archaeologia Mundi (1968) 172 Fig. 136Google Scholar and Salamis, Die Zyprische Metropole des Altertums (1970) 32ff. 49, pl.4. I will not discuss here the possibility of whether the ‘princess’ buried in tomb I of Salamis was Greek (Athenian or from Euboea?) (cf. Gjerstad, E. in Studies presented in memory of P. Dikaios (1979) 89ff.Google Scholar and recently Coldstream, J.N. in Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985 (1985)55)Google Scholar – or not. The resemblance of her necklace to the Eleuthernian piece is striking; the ‘fashion’ looks the same and the round crystal beads and the ribbed golden beads are almost similar. One, of course, has to admit that there are no cylindrical beads on the Salaminian example – unless they have been lost. Anyway, the Eleuthernian necklace seems to me much earlier than the Cypriot example but the point is, what was the location of the goldsmith's workshop? Since the ‘princess’ could be Greek and we know at least an 8th c. goldsmith's workshop at Eretria (cf. P. Themelis in Hägg's Greek Renaissance, (supra n.21) 157–165) one could surmise that a centre like this with the Euboean geometric trade fleet would provide jewellery to distantly located centres. But although I do not consider such an assumption incorrect, I think that the solution of the necklaces' provenance is connected with the technique of working of hard stone, such as the oreia krystallos. Therefore, both necklaces must have been produced in a centre where this technique was practised for years and years. A near eastern centre like Syria or Cyprus itself (cf. the Phoenician workshops of Kition and Encomi) is almost certain but Crete cannot be excluded if one thinks that the island produces the stone and that the technique was not forgotten (or was again taught by eastern mediterranean goldsmiths, Phoenicians for example, during the geometric period. (For early Cretan examples from Mochlos see K. Seager (supra n.24) 48 IV, 11 fig. 20, 55, VI, 27 fig. 25. For examples dated in the geometric period see the oreia krystallos beads from Khaniale Tekke tombs as well as the golden ribbed beads from the same groups (Boardmann, J., BSA 49, 1954, 226 nos. 30–42 pl. 28 and no. 52 pl. 29).Google Scholar For analogous examples of crystal – but also amber – beads of necklaces found in the Idaian cave see recently J. Sakellarakis, Some Geometric and Archaic votives from the Idaian Cave in Hägg's, et alt., Early Greek Cult Practice 1986 (1988) 184ff. 187 n. 109 and 111.Google Scholar

³⁷ See recently one from Stavromenos Rethymnis published by Andeadaki-Vlazaki, M. in Ειλαπινή, Τόμος Τιμητιϰός για τον Ν. Πλάτωνα I–II (1967) 63 Figs. 5b and 15.Google Scholar As one can easily see, the Eleuthernian examples bear several differences in shape from the cup mentioned above.

³⁸ The handles were fired to the body of the bowl by two disc-shaped attachments joined by a flat strap; each disc is attached to the body by three rivers. On either side of each handle is a twisted wire, bridging the handle to each disc of the attachment. There is also a ridge around the base of the lotus flower.

³⁹ Cf. Karageorghis, V., BCH 90, 1966, 297ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; BCH 95, 1971–2, 335ff. and Palaepaphos-Skales, An Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus I–II (1983) 112ff. (Tomb 58) 119 and 125 plate 89 no. 90.

⁴⁰ The type of bowl with lotus flower handles was exported as far as Etruria and influenced local bronze work there (cf. Loschiavo, F., Macnamara, E., Vagnetti, L., Late Cypriot imports to Italy and their influence in local bronze work, PBSR 53, 1985, 1–71).Google Scholar Examples of analogous types are also known from Gordion in Phrygiaas well as from Attica. The Cypriot examples imported into Crete influenced also later the local bronze work (see the examples from Kavousi, Boardman, J. in KrChron 23, 1971, 6Google Scholar Plate A (imported or influenced) Arkades, Levi, D. in ASAtene 10–12, 1927–1929, 472–475 fig. 590Google Scholar (influenced) and elsewhere). For metal vessels from Cyprus see recently Matthäus H., Metallgefässe und Gefässuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern (1985).

⁴¹ Although through preliminary comparisons and analysis of the shape of the cups and the crateriskoi, (which cannot be explained here in detail), I am inclined to an early date for them i.e. the second half of the 10th and 9th c. BC, one has to think that expensive imported pieces like the bronze bowl could be passed by inheritance from generation to generation and that the chronology of the production has less to do with the chronology of its use as an offering in the pyre trench. As a result the chronological question of the first pyre in trench A has to remain for the time being unanswered.

⁴² For cremation and the statement mentioned above see Iakovides, Sp., Excavations of the Necropolis at Perati, Occas. Paper 8, Univ. of California (1980) 10 ff.Google Scholar More recently Mee, C.Rhodes in the Bronze Age (1982) 28ff., 90ff.Google Scholar with bibliography.

⁴³ See Davaras, C., Cremations in Minoan and Subminoan Crete in Antichitá Cretesi, Studi in onore di D.Levi I (1973) 158–167.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Bieńkowski, P.A., Levant 14, 1982, 80ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 88–89 where bibliography on cremations in the near East before the Iron Age.

⁴⁵ See Snodgrass, A., The Dark Age of Greece (1971) 189 ff. map Fig. 69.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See MacFadden, G., AJA 58, 1954, 131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Benson, J.L., The Necropolis of Kaloriziki, SIMA 36, 1973, 24–25, 48ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Bieńkowski, P.A., Levant 14, 1982, 87–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘one should question whether it is a reliable cultural guide at all’.

⁴⁸ See recently Gates, Ch., From Cremation to Inhumation: Burial practices at Ialysos and Kameiros during the mid-archaic period, ca. 625–525 BC, Occas. Paper 11, Univ. of Cal. (1983) 19f. 22ff., 32–33, 41ff.Google Scholar See also mutatis mutandis C. Mee (supra n.42) 90 ‘The two sites where this Aegean Koine can best be defined are the furthest apart, Ialysos and Perati…. Not only Ialysos and Perati practise cremation but the method of cremation is exactly the same. I would not be surprised if the Myceneans who settled at Ialysos and at Perati in LHIIIC came from the same province, whether or not refugees’, as well as the L Cypriot IIIC tomb at Kaloriziki T40 (supra n.13). Combined with the stone enclosures of Crete, with which we are dealing immediately post, it would be interesting to be able to make a comparison with the Necropolis of Gela, a common colony of Cretans and Rhodians (Gortynians and Lindians?) at least in the first generation of the 7th c. BC. The brief history of the excavations on the Necropolis given by Fiorentino, G. in ASAtene 61, 1983, 71–73Google Scholar is very useful but not enough to assist in providing a solution to the problem put here.

⁴⁹ Supra n.9 and 10. In the necropolis of Prinias similar constructions have been found since 1968. See Rizza, G. in Cronache di Archeologia 8, 1969, 7ff.Google Scholar pls. 11, 14, 15; in Siculorum Gymnasium 24, 1971, 1ff. pl. 9,3; in Acta III. Congress in Crete 171 (1974) 286ff. pl. 74; in La Ricerca Scientifica 100, 1978, 85ff. and recently in Atti del convegnio internazionale, ASAtene 61, 1983, 45–51. For the ‘Geloan’ cemetery of Butera in Sicily and its connections with Crete in the protoarchaic period see Rizza, G. in Kokalos 30–31, 1984–1985, 1,65ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cf Themelis, P., Frühgriechische Grabbauten (1976) 27 n.18 and 19.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cf. Effenterre, H. Van, Nécropoles du Mirabello, in Ét. Creét. 8, 1948, 15f.Google Scholar and P. Themelis (supra n.50) 27 n.20.

⁵² I owe this information to Dr M. Tsipopoulou to whom I am grateful, but I have not had the opportunity to consider the material in depth.

⁵³ Cf. Ph. Zapheiropoulou in ADelt Chronica, 18. 20, 21 (noted by P. Themelis in his much discussed thesis (supra n.46 24ff.) and in Magna Grecia, Anno 18, no. 5–6, 1983, 1–4.

⁵⁴ Cf. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, in Arch. Eph. 1970, 16–22.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Other very possible candidates with close connections to Crete are SW. Asia Minor as well as N. Syria and the coast.

⁵⁶ See R.B. Seager (supra n.24) 18ff.

⁵⁷ See, Bosanquet, R.C. in BSA 8, 1901–1902, 290ff.Google Scholar and Dawkins, R.M. in BSA 11, 1904–1905, 268ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The undoubted examples quoted by I. Pini (supra n.24) 8, with the bibliography in the notes and Soles, J.S., The Gournia house tombs: A study of the architecture, chronology and use of the built rectangular tombs of Crete (1973) 1ff.Google Scholar and bibliography.

⁵⁹ In other cases (Vrokastro) the unusual evenness of the upper surfaces of the walls have been explained as if the upper courses had been built of bricks, as they mostly were in early Greek buildings (see E. Hall (supra n.9) 170). But a building resembling ours found in Besik-Tepe, much earlier in date, which also contains at least one cremation inside its back room, and of rougher construction, had a superstructure made of stones, (see Korfmann, M. in AA 1986Google Scholar, Besik-Tepe 1984, 311 ff. Abb.6, 314 ff. Abb. 7ff; and in Troy and the Trojan War, a Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College (1986) 22 no. 15 figs. 15,47 and 18. Korfmann, describing the basic types of structure, refers to ‘one pithos burial within a chamber tomb (no. 15)’. But I am convinced that the structure is of the same type as the Eleuthernian and that the ‘stone circles’ described by Korfmann (pp. 21–22) are of the same type as the ones on Naxos (cf. V. Lambrinoudakis (supra n.11) 238 figs. 12 and 18). The pithos burial may be of a later date having disturbed burial building no. 15, or was standing in the first room and has later fallen down. But on this subject of the ‘stone enclosures’, I am preparing another article which will be published soon.

⁶⁰ See Drerup, H., Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit (Arch. Hom. II:O) (1969) 1ff. 77ff.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Platon, N., KrChron 8, 1954, 455f.Google Scholar I. Pini (supra n.24) 51 and also P. Themelis (supra n.46) 27.

⁶² The Library of History, IV, 79 1ff. 3.

⁶³ Being aware of the critical point of view expressed by Holloway, R. Ross, Italy and the Aegean 3.000–7.000 BC (1981) 101Google Scholar, who believes that the so called temple tomb at Cnossos appears to have been a normal Cretan villa, I give here a slightly different translation which has as a result a slightly different view to the commentary written by Oldfather, C.H., Loeb Class Libr. III (1962) 66–67 n.1Google Scholar who – referring to the tomb of Minos – believes that it was of two storeys and that such a tomb was found at Cnossos by SirEvans, A., The palace of Minos, 4, II (1935) 959ff).Google Scholar First the word διπλούς does not necessarily mean only of two storeys' but could also have the meaning ‘double, of two parts’, (LSJ⁹) which then immediately is cleared out which way it was meant on Diodorus: 1. ϰατά μέν τον ϰ ε ϰ ρ υ μ μ έ ν ο ν τόπον . . ., 2. ϰατά δε τον α ν ε ω γ μ έ ν ο ν (τόπον). 1. means ‘covered, covered in (or with) the earth, buried, lied hidden’ (LSJ⁹). They have put the bones in the then covered place (or even, in the (part which was hidden underground, or covered etc.); 2. means opened, to be opened, to lay uncovered’ (LSJ⁹) in contrast to the first part (or place) (and not necessarily in which (part) that lay open to view as in Oldfather's translation). 3. νεών means either temple or shrine containing the image of the god (LSJ⁹). Following the first interpretation (on this subject I intend to return in an article in preparation). I would think that the ‘temple’ was built on the actual tomb and that the open courtyard, the temenos, was the actual ανεωγμένος τόπος If one accepts the second interpretation then the tomb might have been covered – one way or another – and the actual temenos was the shrine of the god.

⁶⁴ See for example the Heroon of Gjolbaschi–Trysa (Eichler, Fr., Die Reliefs des Heroon von Gjölbaschi–Trysa (1950) 7ff. fig. 1Google Scholar and Childs, W.A.P., The city-Reliefs of Lycia (1978) 13–14 pl. 1.2.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ I.e. Herodotus, I. 171–173. For a descendant of Idomeneus called Lykis (?) (identified with Lykomedes? cf. RE XIII, 2, 2272ff. 2298f. 2300f. and 2393f.) See recently Schachermeyer, Fr., Die griechische Rückerinnerung in Lichte neuer Forschungen, ÖAW, Wien, 404, 1983, 36, 283–284.Google Scholar On Cretan and Asia Minor Lykioi and their possible relations to the Daunia culture, I intend to return in the future.

⁶⁶ See Κοντολὲων, Ν., Τogr; Ἐϱέχθειον ὡς οἰχοδόμημα χθονίας λατϱείας (1949) 55ff.Google Scholar and especially 69ff. Travlos, I., Pictorial Dictionary of ancient Athens (1971) 213–217Google Scholar with bibliography. Even if one adopts Jeppesen's, Kr. theory (The Theory of the alternative Erechtheion (1987) 7ff.Google Scholar, Kekropeion (Kecrops grave and precinct) with Pandroseion temenos does not change.

⁶⁷ Almost always identified as the goddess of fertility and of Nature. See Alexiou, St., KrChron, 12, 1958, 179ff.Google Scholar Also the interpretation of the representation on the relief amphorae of Tenos and Boetia by Themelis (supra n.46) 90ff. pls. 10 and 11. In Cyprus, she existed still in the archaic classical period (see Karageorghis, V., The Goddess with uplifted arms in Cyprus, Scripta Minora 1977–1978, 29ff.Google Scholar and recently Φλουϱέντξου, Π., Τά εἰδώλλια τῆς πϱοιστοϱιϰης Κύπϱον' (1988) 52–53).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ A relief protome on the body, under the lip, of one of these pots (Fig. 24) probably represents a goddess. All these vessels have their precedents in the Near East. The forerunners of such vessels could be the so-called ‘ποτήρια ϰοινωίας’ of the Minoan period but the type is known to have existed (in stone and clay) in prehistoric Cyclades, Mycenae and the Levant. In the geometric period we have ceramic parallels from Megido and Cyprus and later during the archaic period, in Cyprus and Etruria. Some of them could also have been used as thymiateria.

⁶⁹ See Richter, G., Kouroi ³ (1970) 118–119 figs. 395–398Google Scholar and Fuchs, W., Die Skulptur der Griechen ³ (1983) 34–35 figs. 20–21.Google Scholar Of course I do not discuss here the problems arising from the pieces recovered to date but I note some of the figure's peculiarities as e.g. the absence of the projecture of the left foot.

⁷⁰ It almost certainly comes from the quarry of Alpha next to Eleutherna, because of the material's softness. Limestone is difficult to be transported for long distances in contrast to hard stones, marble, granite etc. (See recently Monna, D. in N. Herz–M. Waelkens, Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade. Proceedings of the NATO advanced Research workshop on Marble in ancient Greece and Rome, NATO ASI series (1988) 7–8).Google Scholar Therefore, limestone sculpture always tended to be of local provenance.

⁷¹ Although what we possess is not much and it is not yet cleaned and restored, it seems to me to bear affinities to the Naxian (and Theran) works as the ones exhibited in the local museum and on Delos.

⁷² For this Homeric epithet (τ 242), which according to Duntzer refers to the designs of the hem, see Α. Δεμπέοη (supra n.17) 84 n.393 where there is also a selected bibliography.

⁷³ For this statuette and the reconstruction on paper of its base see Ohly, D., AM 82, 1967, 89–89 fig. 1 and G. Kopke pp. 100–148.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ On these possibilities see also lately Ridgeway, B.S. in Chios, A Conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984 (1986) 266–267.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Lippold, G., HdA III (1950)Google Scholar and Richter, G., Korai (1968) no. 18, figs. 76–79.Google Scholar For the gesture and discussion about the chronology once again, see Adams, L., Orientalizing Sculpture in soft limestone from Crete and Mainland Greece (1978) 32ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Similar the lower part of a small scale female limestone sculpture found on the acropolis of Gortyn now in the Heraklion Museum; see Rizza, G.–Scrinari, V., Il Santuario sull' Acropoli di Gortina I: La scultura in pietra, i bronzi figurati e la plastica fittile, Monogr. SAtene 2 (1968) 155 no. 3 pl. 1.Google Scholar Unfortunately, we do not know if the Kore of Eleutherna had plastically rendered toes as the Auxerre statuette or, like Nikandre and the Samian statuette, had not. For the discussion on this subject, see L. Adams (supra n.75) 34. For wooden parallels see H. Kyrieleis (infra n.78) 103–104 no. 13 pl. 24, 1–2. On stelai see Α. Δεμπέοη (supra n. 17) 21ff. A1, A2 etc. pl. 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. On vases see the woman on the Aphrati oinochoe, D. Levi (supra n.25) 401 fig. 518a.

⁷⁷ See for example the two goddesses of the ‘Apollonian Trias’ from Dreros, lately Blome, P., Die figurliche Bildwelt Kretas der geometrischen und früharchaisen Periode (1982) 10ff.Google Scholar with bibliography, pl. 4, 1–2.

⁷⁸ See lately Kyrieleis, H., Neue Holzfunde aus dem Heraion von Samos, Atti del convegno internazionale, Grecia, Italia e Sicilia nell VIII e VII s. a.C. 1979 vol. III, ASAtene 61, 1983 (1984). 295ff.Google Scholar Especially the wooden Kore, p. 298–300 figs. 6–7 and the author's interesting view that it is Cretan work. Also his work Archaische Holzfunde aus Samos, in AM 95 (1980) 87 ff.Google Scholar and especially 94ff. no. 11, pl. 21–22 and 103–104 pl. 24, 1–2.

⁷⁹ The identification of the Auxerre statuette's work manship as Cretan had been seriously doubted. See the bibliography on the subject collected by Davaras, , Die Statue aus Astritsi, AK Beih. 8 (1972) 55.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Lebessi, A., Monumento funeratio del VII s. a. C. a Creta in Antichit Cretesi II (1974) 120f. figs. 1, 3, 4.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Especially those which depict all the upper body including the upper legs covered (see Α. Δεμπέοη (supra n.17) nos. A5, A6 etc. but not B2).

⁸² Here, the shield does not cover the upper legs but the idea is the same. (See Creta Antica (1984), 230–231 with bibliography, figs. 424–425, 429). They also resemble, in the relationship between shield and body, bronze warriors such as those on the cauldron stands of the geometric period found in the Idaean Cave (See recently, P. Blome (supra n.77) 25f. with bibliography, pl. 11, 1–2 and fig. 8).

⁸³ See E. Simon (supra n.14) 48–50 with bibl. and good photos on figs. 25, 26, VII.

⁸⁴ I merely draw a comparison with the devices on the bronze shields of the Idaean Cave (see P. Blome (supra n.77) 15ff. figs. 5–10).

⁸⁵ A very good example, because it is three dimensional, is the ‘balsamarlo plastico’ of the second quarter of the 6th c. from Cerveteri (see Martelli, M., La ceramica degli Etrusci (1987) 29 n. 95, 139Google Scholar) where the legs are given separately on the horse's flanks (Fig. 29).

⁸⁶ E.g. the two warriors at the right of the ship-deck on Aristonothos crater from Cerveteri, side B (cf. M. Martelli (supra n.85) 18 no. 40 (B), 93.

⁸⁷ E.g. the ivory Mitra no. 15362 in the Nat. Museum at Athens, Marangou, E.L.I., Lakonische Elfenbein und Beinschnitzereien (1969) 83ff.Google Scholar (Fig. 68) with all the bibliography up to the date of publication.

⁸⁸ I hope I will have the chance to discuss this possibility in another article as soon as I can find some contemporary parallels.

⁸⁹ See also supra n.80, here Fig. 36.

⁹⁰ See Hampe, R.–Simon, E., Tausend Jahre Frühgriechische Kunst (1980) 48 figs. 67–69, 285Google Scholar, where also the perspective sketch of the trimeres hieron with the decorated architectural parts of the lintels and jambs.

⁹¹ Cf. the bibliography where more or less different aspects of interpretation are given to the central scene of the sarcophagus: Paribeni, E., MonAnt. 19 (1908–1909).Google ScholarNillson, M.P., Minoan–Mycenean Religion² (1950)²246ff.Google ScholarNauert, P., AK 8 (1965) 91ff.Google ScholarLong, Ch.R., The Aya Triada Sarco phagus, SIMA 41 (1974)Google ScholarSimon, E. in RE. Suppl. 15 (1978) part III, 1417–18.Google Scholar

The interpretation of the warriors as effigies in front of (or on) their tomb (or the idol of a God? according to the examples selected by Long; one has to add here the small wooden relief from Samos (Kyrielles, H., AM 95 (1980) 106 n.81)Google Scholar and the small naiskos-relief from Gortyna where the hands of the figures are missing) and their comparison with the figure standing outside the tomb depicted on the sarcophagus of Hagia Triada do not lose any weight because of the time distance (about seven centuries) between the two monuments. In burial customs as well as in religion (see Willetts, R.F., The Civilization of Ancient Crete (1979) 198ff.Google Scholar) ideas and beliefs always had a very slow evolution. Questions could be raised on the similarities between the architectural pieces and their resemblance with the Minoan ones. However one has to bear in mind that almost eight hundred years later Pausanias (V, 16,1) himself saw the archaic wooden column in the opisthodomos of the temple of Hera in Olympia and that the Parthenon stood to be seen almost complete for at least a thousand years. Therefore, I think that many Minoan buildings – of domestic, public or religious use – stood in ruins for years. One has only to think of the Byzantine castles still existing in ruins or other buildings from the classical and hellenistic times the material of which was used by the peasants even in the beginning of this century in Greece to build their own houses, (e.g. some of the houses of modern Vergina after 1922, used stone material from the ancient city of Aegae and even from the palace). If one would disagree because the material of the Parthenon or of a classical city was not the same as that of the Minoan palaces temples or cities, Sakellarakis' finds in Zominthos (a first, small report by him in L'antro Ideo, , Cento anni di attivita archaeologic Italiana in Creta, Atti dei convegni Lincei 74 (1985) 41–42 fig. 24)Google Scholar, Ergon 1986 (1987) 139–141; also BCH 111 (1987) 577) can prove that even Minoan buildings on the high mountain of Ida could survive partly in storeys for many hundreds of years; much more the architectural pieces in stone (lintels, jambs, orthostates etc.) could not only be reused but they could survive and inspire later craftsmen. For Minoan reflections on Cretan geometric art see also J.N. Coldstream. For Sacred enclosures in Crete see Rutkowski, B., The cult places in the Aegean (1986) 99ff.Google Scholar 106 (Aghia Triada).