Minoan Archaeology

Perspectives for the 21st Century

Sarah Cappel

Ute Günkel-Maschek

Diamantis Panagiotopoulos

© Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2015 Registration of copyright: D/2015/9964/24ISBN: 978-2-87558-394-9ISBN PDF version: 978-2-87558-395-6Printed in Belgium by CIACO scrl - printer number 91617 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted or translated, in any form or by any means, in any country, without the prior permission of Presses universitaires de Louvain

Graphic design: Marie-Hélène Grégoire Cover image: © Ute Günkel-Maschek

Distribution: www.i6doc.com, on-line university publishers Available on order from bookshops or at Diffusion universitaire CIACO (University Distributors) Grand-Rue, 2/141348 Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumTel: +32 10 47 33 78Fax: +32 10 45 73 50duc@ciaco.com

Distributor in France:Librairie Wallonie-Bruxelles46 rue Quincampoix75004 Paris, FranceTel: +33 1 42 71 58 03Fax: +33 1 42 71 58 09librairie.wb@orange.fr

This book has been printed with the inancial support from the Institute of Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP)

I

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements III

“Minoan Archaeology”: The Heidelberg Conference Between Past and Future

Sarah Cappel, Ute Günkel-Maschek, Diamantis Panagiotopoulos V

Conference Programme IX

Dealing with “Minoan”: 111 Years of Minoan archaeologY

The Unknown Past of Minoan Archaeology: From the Renaissance Until the Arrival of

Sir Arthur Evans in Crete

Nektarios Karadimas 3

Exhibiting the Minoan Past: From Oxford to Knossos

Yannis Galanakis 17

Data in Progress: exPloring the cretan lanD- anD citYscaPe

Chryssi Island: New Evidence on the Bronze Age Settlement Patterns of the Ierapetra Area

Konstantinos Chalikias 37

Making the Invisible Visible: Ground Penetrating Radar at Papadiokampos, Crete

Antonia Stamos 53

Capturing the Dynamics of the Minoan Mortuary Space in South Central Crete

Sylviane Déderix 61

Minoan Cityscapes: Urban Planning in Neopalatial Crete

D. Matthew Buell 77

let’s coMe together: Places anD sPaces of social anD ritual interaction

The Places and the Role of Consumption in MM II Phaistos

Giorgia Baldacci 95

Deining Minoan “Cult Rooms”: Past and Present Approaches to the Archaeology of CultKathrin Müller 109

Between the Physical and Metaphysical: Exploring Aspects of Communication in the

Temple Tomb at Knossos

Mark S. Peters 125

(De)Constructing Identities Through Architecture in LM III Crete

Panagiota A. Pantou 135

Peer Pressure: social structures froM a “Minoan” PersPective

For an Archaeology of Minoan Society. Identifying the Principles of Social Structure

Jan Driessen 149

All Aboard: The Longboat and a Heterarchical Interpretation of the Mochlos Cemetery

Steven T. Karacic 167

Social Complexity and Gender Inequality in Prepalatial Crete: An Argument of Reason

or a Reason for Argument?

Maria Mina 181

Connecting with Selves and Others: Varieties of Community-Making across Late Prepalatial Crete

Emily S.K. Anderson 199

II

Social Variation in Middle Bronze Age Knossos: Palaeodietary Evidence

Argyro Nafplioti 213

On the Household Structure of Neopalatial Society

Emmanouela Apostolaki 223

Manpower and Neopalatial Architecture: The Architectural Project as a Meaningful Experience

Maud Devolder 241

Be(hav)ing “Minoan”: negotiating life anD Death through Practice anD PerforMance

Recreating the Past: Using Tholos Tombs in Protopalatial Mesara

Ilaria Caloi 255

The Body Brand and Minoan Zonation

Anna Simandiraki-Grimshaw 267

Cultural Performances at the Beginning of the Bronze Age: Early Minoan I and II Cemeteries as

Stages for Performance

Katy Soar 283

Performance Theory in Minoan Rituals and the Ambiguity of Minoan Symbols

Maria Chountasi 299

(A) Choreographed Frenzy: A Sequence of Steps Towards Understanding Movement and Dance

in Aegean Bronze Age Iconography

Céline Murphy 311

A Portable Goddess: On Performative and Experiental Aspects of Figures and Figurines

Katarzyna Zeman-Wisniewska 319

“Minoan” Material entangleMents: DocuMenting anD interPreting “Minoan” (?) craftsManshiP

Minoan Pottery: From Materials to Materiality

Carl Knappett 329

Pots and Potters: Thoughts on Ceramic Technology and the Craftsmen behind the Product

Sebastian Traunmüller 341

Transmediterranean Knowledge and Minoan Style Reliefs in Tell el Dabca: An Attempt at

Paradigm Shift

Constance von Rüden 355

Minoan Archaeology: The Pretence of Being Through Perception, Retention and Recollection

Iro Mathioudaki 367

closing reMarks

Formulating Minoan Research in the 21st Century

Peter Warren 377

List of Contributors 381

319

A Portable Goddess

On Performative and Experiental Aspects of Figures and Figurines

Katarzyna Zeman-Wisniewska

ωoroplastic studies – concerning igures and igurines, constitute a distinct, very vibrant and dynamic ield of archaeo logical researchέ χ traditional perception of igures and igurines was usually as objects of art, the main purpose of which was to be looked atέ However, as ethnographic examples illustrate, anthropomorphic statuettes are made to be used in a variety of ways and interacted withμ thus touched, handled, and carried aboutέ In this paper, I discuss performative and experiential aspects of soάcalled “Goddesses with Upraised χrms”, terracotta igures and igurines, representing a standing female with a long skirt and arms stretched upwards, dated to the Late Minoan IIIωέ χs comparative material, I use examples of morphologically similar igurines known from ωyprus, from the Late ωypriot III until the ωlassical periodέ ωonsidering their ind spots and dimensions I discuss how they might have been handled and displayed and how that would affect the way people who interacted with them perceived themέ χlthough morphologically similar ωretan and ωypriot examples vary clearly in size and, as I argue, also in functionέ χll studied examples are threeάdimensional objects, with a certain degree of portabilityέ ψigger or smaller size imposes speciic limitations and possibilities, iέeέ a igure is more visible for a larger group of people, and a igurine is more palpable and easier to handleέ Moreover, the dimensions of the object play an important role in the process of perception and can have psychological effects on viewers andήor handlersέ χn exάample of a performative aspect of ωretan igures, which I discuss thoroughly in this paper, is their possible usage in processions, or as a representation of a ritual, assuring its continuous repetitionέ

Introduction

Terracotta igures and igurines, especially anthropomorphic ones, have always attracted the attention of scholarsέ χnthropomorphic statuettes, in particular, are fascinating in the way they bring us face to face with the past, and have provoked numerous discussions concerning ancient religions, social structures and even prehistoric percepάtions of beautyέ1 ωoroplastic studies – concerning igures and igurines – have recently developed as a distinct, very vibrant and dynamic ield of archaeological researchέ Previous art historical approaches have been supplemented and further challenged by new methodologies based on contextuality, also beneitting from ethnographic research and gender studies.2 χrchaeologists have started to acknowledge that artifacts, including igures and igurines, should not be studied as they are presented in modern museums, standing alone, extracted from their environment, visible only enάface and untouchableέ3 These objects need to be placed within their social and spatial context, beάcause they derive their meaning from them, and not vice versa as it used to be believedέ4 These new methodologies invite us also to explore further possibilities of “iguring out igurines”, as threeάdimensional, palpable objects, and the role they might have played in the life of past communitiesέ

In this paper, I would like to consider performative and experiential aspects of terracottas, how they might be handled and displayed in a variety of ways, iέeέ touched, or carried aboutν and how that would more speciicalάly have affected the way they were perceived by people who interacted with themέ Methodologically, I follow Elizabeth French, who in her study of Mycenaean terracottas made an important distinction between igurines, small, handmade, and igures, with coil or wheelάmade stemsήbodies and of a large sizeέ5 ψigger or smaller size imposes speciic limitations and possibilitiesέ The dimensions of the object also play an important role in the

1 This paper was a part of my PhD project at Trinity ωollege Dublin, which was funded by the Irish Research ωouncil for the Humaniάties and Social Sciencesέ I would like to thank Dr ωhristine Morris, Dr Laerke Recht and the anonymous reviewer for their suggestions and commentsέ 2 Ucko 19θκέ3 ψailey 2005ν ψrumiel 199θν Hamilton et alέ 199θν ZonouάHerbst 2009έ4 French 19κ1, 1ι3έ5 French 19κ1έ

320

A Portable Goddess

process of perception and can have psychological effects on viewers andήor handlersέθ I will discuss these issues using a case study of groups of ωretan and ωypriot igures and igurines conventionally termed “Goddesses with Upraised χrms”έ“Goddesses with Upraised χrms” are anthropomorphic terracottas representing a standing female with a long skirt (often wheelάmade) and arms stretched upwards, sometimes wearing a tiaraέι This type of statuette had emerged in Creteκ and was especially common in Postpalatial shrinesν they are considered to be a primary phenomenon of this period’s cult activityέ9 ωretan sites where they have been reported includeμ Hagia Triada, Gazi, Gournia, Khalasάmenos, Kannia, Karphi, Kavousi Vronda (igέ 1) and Knossosέ10 Figures or their fragments found at these sites can be dated to Late Minoan IIIψ or Late Minoan IIIωέ Figurines often classiied as “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” are also well attested in ωyprus from Late ωypriot III down to the ωlassical period and were especially common during ωyproάGeometric I–IIέ11 The earliest ωypriot “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” were found in Kition and LimassolάKomissariato and are dated to Late ωypriot IIIωέ Examples from the ωyproάGeometric period have been reported from Hagios Iakovos, Lapithos, Kition, Enkomi (igέ 2), Idalion, PalaepaphosάSkales, Ormidhyia, Hagia Irini, MorphouάToumba tou Skourou, and Kitionέ12 There are also several examples dated to this period but of unknown provenanceέ13 The “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” group consists of many very different igurines and igures – they vary in size, decoration, associated attributes, and the quantity of them found at individual sitesέ The irst examples of “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” on ωrete were igurines and igures of a moderate size, like the terracotta from the Unexplored Mansion in Knossos, which was 0έ33 m in height,14 or the “Goddess with Upraised χrms” from Gournia of 0έ3θ5 mέ15 Their dimensions link them with the earlier Minoan coroplastic traάditions, in which even highly decorated representations, probably of special importance, were rather smallέ In the later LM IIIω shrines of Karphi and Khalasmenos, igures were larger, ranging from 0έ5 m to 0έκ m in heightέ In comparison, ωypriot igurines with upraised arms from Enkomi were very small, usually no bigger than 0έ0ι m in heightέ Other examples from ωyprus are igurines of rather medium size, 0έ12 m to 0έ2 mν of such dimensions are the “Goddess with Upraised χrms” found in LimassolάKomisariato and in Kitionέ1θ The dimensions of an object play an important role in the process of its perception and can have psychological effects on viewers and handlersέ

θ ψailey 2005, 2θ–44έι χlexiou 195κν Karageorghis 19ικέκ Gessel 2004, 131έ9 Peatield 1994έ10 Gesell 19κ5έ11 Karageorghis 19ικέ12 Karageorghis 19ικν 1993, 59–θ1έ13 Karageorghis 1993, κ5έ14 Higgins 19κ4, 19κέ15 Eliopoulos 2004, κθέ1θ Karageorghis 19ικ, 1θ–ι, 2κ–9έ

Fig. 1 One of the GWUAs igures from Kavousi, ca. 60 cm (drawn by the author).

Fig. 2 Examples of Enkomi igurines, ca. 9 cm (drawn by the author).

321

Katarzyna Zeman-Wisniewska

Size imposes speciic limitations and possibilitiesν a large igure is, for example, more visible for a group of people, and a igurine is more palpable and easier to handleέ Nevertheless, scholars interpreting assemblages from both islands usually try to assign one brief deinition to them – Goddess or Priestessέ1ι

“Goddesses with Upraised Arms” in Crete

In Postpalatial ωretan towns and settlements, we ind small soάcalled benchάsanctuaries, approachable directly from the street, with the “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” igures and associated ritual equipmentμ snake tubes with kalathoi, plaques, along with domestic potteryέ1κ There are almost no luxury objects associated with these shrines, and the igures themselves were of coarse clay probably made by local pottersέ19 Moreover “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” were made to be able to stand without any support, on the stable base of their bellάshaped skirtsέ The igures were designed to be the focal point of the ritual, main cult statuettes, a proposition reinforced by their position on the benches opposite the doorway in the shrineέ ψench sanctuaries, being accessible directly from the street, most probably served all members of the communityέ20 Thus we might suggest that cult itself was public and everyone could participate in itέ However, the size of these sanctuaries, which usually consists of up to three small rooms, did not allow for the performance of a public ritualέ21

In ψronze χge χegean art, a ritual of a procession, which is an organized body of people advancing in a formal or ceremonial manner, is attestedέ It was and still is in many societies a popular form of public celebration, forming an orderly and impressive ceremony, as well as a kind of cult activity which might involve a vast majority or even a whole communityέ

There are two iconographical examples from the χegean, which could be interpreted as illustrations of a person holding a igurineν both come from Mainland Greeceέ The irst is a fragment from a fresco from Tiryns, which depicts a clutched hand, with the ingers wrapped around an object that might be the lower part of a stylized Myάcenaean igurine or a smaller igure22 probably cέ 0έ3 m high (estimated based on proportions)έ It is part of a larger depiction of a procession of lifeάsized women carrying different objects, such as a pyxis or jewelry, probably as offeringsέ23 However, the image is too fragmentary to establish for certain whether it is a depiction of a terracotta igurine or a vesselέ The other example is also a fresco fragment, from the Southwest ψuilding in Mycenae, which depicts a pair of hands (possibly female) holding a miniature female dressed in a long, yellow garment decorated with red dots and bordersέ24 It is part of a processional fresco, which culminates in a depiction of “Mykenaia” and a seated goddess, thus probably illustrating a public offering for the deity andήor involving priestessesέ It has been proposed that the miniature person is a child being offered to the deity,25 although she seems to be wearing a helάmet, which, in other examples from Mycenaean iconography, is considered to be an attribute of a divinityέ2θ It is, however, possible that the miniature female is a terracotta igurine or igure, or rather what Mycenaeans thought such a igurine representedέ If they were igures of gods or goddesses, society probably would have perceived them as being inhabited by a deity during rituals, or possibly even permanentlyέ Therefore, it is tempting to postulate that this fresco, rather than being a depiction of a depiction, illustrates the actual meaning of the igurineέ Whittaker compares this to later Greek vase painting, where it is hard to distinguish between the deity and his or her statueέ2ι

χs Immerwahr observed, it is dificult to establish whether both hands touching the miniature female belong to the same person, or if this fresco fragment illustrates an actual act of offering and passing of the gift between the

1ι It has been also suggested that the function of igurines representing worshippers found in sanctuaries might have been to give a concrete, permanent form to a prayer and ensure its continuous repetition (ωonnelly 19κ9ν Whittaker 2009)έ Whittaker (2009, 102–3) presents examples of such terracottas ranging from Tell χsmar in Mesopotamia to ωypriot Hagia Irini and the Temple at Hagia Irini on Keaέ She argues that a dedication of a igurine or a igure might have symbolized a dedication of a prayer, or a ritual that was repeated continuously by being embodied within the offeringέ χ similar proposition had already been made by Evansν he suggested that terracotάtas in the Double χxe shrine in Knossos were arranged in a speciic way, illustrating a ritual for a Dove Goddess (Evans 192κ, 335–44)έ1κ Gessel 2004, 13κέ19 Gessel 199ιέ20 Peatield 1994, 31έ21 Gesell 19κ5, 4ιν Rethemiotakis 2001έ22 Immerwahr 1990, 114έ23 Whittaker 2009, 10ιέ24 Immerwahr 1990, 119έ25 Immerwahr 1990, 119έ2θ KontorliάPapadopoulou 199θ, igέ 95έ2ι Whittaker 2009, 10θ–ιέ

322

A Portable Goddess

deity and the leading igure of the procesάsion.2κ If it is indeed a terracotta igurine that is represented, it should be possible to observe that it was held with a thumb inside (as would be possible for hollow cylindrical terracottas)έ Thus, this fragάment might illustrate a ritual during which the people in a procession bring offerings to the goddess, of which the irst, and so probably the most important, is a igurine or a igure depicting a deity or – maybe in a symbolic manner – a child, eέgέ for securing the divine protection of the irstάbornήheirέ Mycenaean written sources also provide evidence for the use of igurinesν it is probable that the Linear ψ word “teάpoάriάja” is connected with the carrying of igures andήor igurines of deities in processions.29 Unfortunately, there is no such iconographical or textual evidence from ωrete or ωyprus in the Lψχ or EIχ, but Mycenaean culture provides a good analogy because of its close relations with both islandsέ

It is tempting to postulate the existence of this type of ritual in Postpalatial ωretan settlements as well, during which igures of “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” were paraded around the villageέ χlthough big enough to be seen from a distance, the igάures were hollow inside which made them lighter and easier to transportέ They could be held by the bellάshaped skirt or by the waist, in a way that would make the emάblematic gesture of upraised arms visible to the observersέ

However, ethnographic observations suggest usage of a platform carried by two or four, usually speciically selected,

peopleέ Such observations might help us to move towards a model of how such rituals work at a practical levelέ χ useful analogy is offered by an example of a procession with two igures of the Virgin Mary around ψrok, a small town in eastern Polandέ30 The igures used to be carried by young unmarried women from “good” and usually wealthy familiesέ Involvement in this ritual was meant to give them “special blessing”έ ψy underlining their social position it also gave them better chances of a good marriageέ Nowadays, girls are usually no longer interested in taking active part in the procession, and they are replaced by elderly, married women from one of the religious organizations (igsέ 3 and 4)έ The igures themselves stand in the church, but their importance is considered to deάrive from their usage in processions during which they bless the village and the whole communityέ Of course, we

2κ Immerwahr 1990, 119έ29 Whittaker 2009, 10ιέ30 χuthor’s own ethnographic researchέ

Fig. 3 Procession with a Virgin Mary igure in Brok, Poland (pho-

tographed by the author).

Fig. 4 Procession with a Virgin Mary igure in Brok, Poland (pho-

tographed by the author).

323

Katarzyna Zeman-Wisniewska

should be very cautious when applying ethnographic analogiesμ not to treat them as a readyάmade answer to our research questions, but rather as making us “aware of modes of behavior that would be dificult to deduce by logic alone”έ31

χnother analogy is offered by texts concerning processions from Emar in Syria, a Late ψronze χge site at the fringe of the Hittite empireέ32 They underline especially three elementsμ leaving the sacred site, carrying the sacred object (the most important sacred objects were the gods themselves in form of statues) and returning to the sacred siteν sometimes it also included passing by a special place or eέgέ between stonesέ33 We can see that processions involved special clothing, eέgέ the priestess dressed as a bride, and musicέ There is always a set order in which participants move, such as during the zukru festival, when irst come animals, singers are before the offering, after the offering is the god Halma and behind him the divine axeέ34 χlso the precise timing is very important, when the procession takes place and when the particular elements (like veiling and unveiling of the statue) happenέ Not only do the priests and priestess or musicians take part in it, the whole population of the city watches and follows themέ35

“Goddesses with Upraised Arms” in Cyprus

ωypriot “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” from the Late ωypriot IIIω and ωyproάGeometric periods were also preάdominantly found in ritual contexts – in sanctuariesέ Does this mean that ωypriot “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” igurines could be interpreted in a similar way to the ωretan examples? More than 100 fragmentary examples of such igurines were found in the western area of the Ingot God sanctuary in Enkomiέ The small size (around 9 cm) and the large quantity of the Enkomi igurines do not permit us to identify them as representations of deities, and there were also male statuettes of similar size found within this areaέ3θ ψoth types could originally have been atάtached to circular plaques and arranged into groups of one male musician and three female dancers, judging from the presence of fragments of bases and music instruments and from complete examples of later dateέ3ι However, because of the context within which they have been found, it should be seen as a part of the ritualέ This would indicate the presence of performances including music and dance in Early Iron χge ωypriot religion, which are represented by the gesture of upraised armsέ The primary function of the igurines from Enkomi was to depict active participants of the cult, and the performance of the ritual itself, or they might even have symbolized a dediάcation of a prayer, or a ritual that was repeated continuously by being embodied within the offeringέ On the other hand, igures from ωrete were irst of all objects used in the cult, as an indication of the divine presenceέ Despite the stylistic similarities and even despite being found in a similar context (iέeέ in a sanctuary), the basic meaning of these artifacts was different for their usersέ

χnother characteristic subάtype of ωypriot “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” is a free standing igurine of 12 cm in height with a pillarάlike baseέ3κ The smaller size and absence of a bellάshaped skirt are the most visible elementsέ They might be considered votive offerings brought to sanctuaries, as a personal offeringέ Moreover the cylindrical body of the igurine could easily be held in one’s hand with the ingers wrapped around the pillarάlike lower part, while the arms and head would have been visible, presenting the emblematic gesture of upraised armsέ Miniaάturization, always connected with a certain degree of abstraction and compression, results in the intimacy that is demanded by small objectsέ39 It also empowers the spectator, by facilitating physical control over a thing, and encourages a notion of possessionέ40 Thus an intimate relationship might be created between igurine and holder, indicating that the cult of which these statuettes were part of was on a personal levelέ

31 Talalay 1993, 40έ32 Fleming 2000ν 1992έ33 Fleming 2000, 91–3ν 1992, 10θ–ιέ34 Fleming 1992, 10κέ35 Fleming 2000, 91–2έ3θ Schaeffer 19ι1, 32κ–43ν Webb 1999, 212–13έ3ι Webb 1999, 213–15έ3κ Smith 2009, 12θ–34έ39 ψailey 2005, 2θ–44έ40 ψailey 199θ, 291έ

324

A Portable Goddess

Conclusions

The case studies presented here underline important methodological issues concerning the study of the artifact type designated with the overarching term “Goddesses with Upraised χrms”έ Figures and igurines which are morphologically similar may, nevertheless, have different meaningsέ The same gesture can be described as active (as an element of the performance) and passive (as an emblematic gesture, symbolic) within different contextsέ The meaning and function of this type of igure in ωrete also should not simply be transferred to the ωypriot maάterial, even if the general ritual context of their usage is supericially similarέ “Goddesses with Upraised χrms”, despite their conventional name, could have depicted deities, priestesses or dancing votaries, have taken the role of both the object or focus of the ritual and a representation of the ritual itself, and have been part of communal or personal levels of cultέ Thus, rather than assigning a single meaning to terracottas belonging to the “Goddesses with Upraised χrms” type, we should be aware of a whole range of possibilities for their individual meanings and functionsέ

I postulate that igurines and igures are not meaningful on their own, but that they gain their special meaning through being actively used in ritual, whether it is a communal procession or an intimate act of an offeringέ Their function and meaning are inevitably connected in a way so as to possibly determine each otherέ However, we should also remember that they might have multiple functions and meanings which could have changed through the course of time and according to contextέ χs I have illustrated, based on ind context and characteristics of the objects themselves, such as dimensions and shape, it is possible to reconstruct probable ways in which they would have been handledέ This active approach to studied material should make it more approachable and understandάable, and eventually brings us closer “face to face” with past communitiesέ

325

Katarzyna Zeman-Wisniewska

Bibliography

χlexiou, Sέ 195κέ “Η ε ε ’ υ ε ρώ έ” CretChron 12μ1ι9–299έ

ψailey, DέWέ 2005έ Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithicέ Londonμ Routledgeέ

———έ 199θέ “The Interpretation of Figurinesμ the Emergence of Illusion and New Ways of Seeingέ” CAJ θ(2)μ 291–95έ

ψrumiel, Eέ 199θέ “Figurines and the χztec Stateμ Testing the Effectiveness of the Ideological Dominationέ” In Gender and Archaeology, edited by RέP Wright, 143–θθέ Philadelphiaμ University of Pennsylvania Pressέ

ωonnelly, Jέψέ 19κ9έ “Standing ψefore One’s Godέ Votive Sculpture and the ωypriot Religious Traditionέ” The Biblical Archaeologist 52μ210–1κέ

Eliopoulos, Tέ 2004έ “Gournia, Vronda Kavousi, Kephala Vasilikisμ χ Triad of Interrelated Shrines of the Expiring Minoan χge on the Isthmus of Ierapetraέ” In Crete beyond the Palaces: Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference, edited by LέPέ Day, MέSέ Mook, and JέDέ Muhly, κ1–90έ Philadelphiaμ INSTχP χcademic Pressέ

Evans, χέ 192κέ The Palace of Minosέ Volέ IIέ Londonμ Macmillanέ

Fleming, DέEέ 1992έ The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emarέ χtlantaμ Scholars Pressέ

———. 2000έ Time at Emar: the cultic calendar and the rituals from the diviner’s archiveέ Winona Lakeμ Eisenάbraunsέ

French, Eέ 19κ1έ “Mycenaean Figures and Figurinesέ Their Typology and Functionέ” In Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Ageέ Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May 1980, edited by Rέ Hägg and Nέ Marinatos, 1ι3–ιιέ Stockholmμ Svenska Institutet i χthenέ

Gesell, Gέωέ 19κ5έ Town, Palace and House Cult in Minoan Crete. SIMA 5ιέ Göteborgμ Paul Åströms Förlagέ

———έ 2004έ “From Knossos to Kavousiμ The Popularization of the Minoan Palace Goddessέ” In Χ ι : Essays in Honor of Sara Aέ Immerwahr, edited by χέPέ ωhapin, 131–50έ Hesperia Supplέ 33έ Princetonμ Princeton University Pressέ

Gesell, Gέωέ, and Tέωέ Saupeέ 199ιέ “Methods Used in the ωonstruction of ωeramic Objects from the Shrine of the Goddess with Upάraised Hands at Kavousiέ” In Τ χνη: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Ageέ Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996, edited by Rέ Lafineur and PέPέ ψetancourt, 123–2θέ Aegaeum 1θέ Liège and χustinμ Université de Liège and University of Texas at χustinέ

Hamilton, Nέ, Jέ Marcus, Dέ ψailey, GέRέ Haaland, and Pέ Uckoέ 199θέ “ωan We Interpret Figurines?” CAJ θ(2)μ 2κ1–30ιέ

Higgins, Rέχέ 19κ4έ “Terracotta Figurinesέ” In The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, edited by MέRέ Popham, 19ι–202έ Oxfordμ Thames and Hudsonέ

Immerwahr, Sέχέ 1990έ Aegean Painting in the Bronze Ageέ Londonμ The Pennsylvania State University Pressέ

Karageorghis, Vέ 19ιι–19ικέ The Goddess with Uplifted Armsέ Scripta Minora 2. Lundtμ ωWK Gleerupέ

Karageorghis, Vέ 1993έ The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus II: Late Cypriot II – CyproάGeometric IIIέ Nicosiaμ χnastasios Gέ Leventis Foundationέ

KontorliάPapadopoulou, Lέ 199θέ Aegean Frescoes of Religious Character. SIMA 11ιέ Göteborgμ Paul Åströms Förlagέ

326

A Portable Goddess

Peatield, χέ 1994έ “χfter the ‘ψig ψang’ – What? Or Minoan Symbols and Shrines beyond Palatial ωollapseέ” In Placing the Godsέ Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, edited by SέEέ χlcock and Rέ Osborne, 19–3θέ Oxfordμ ωlarendon Pressέ

Rethemiotakis, Gέ 2001έ Minoan Clay Figures and Figurinesέ From the Neopaltial to the Subminoan Period. Athάensμ The χrchaeological Society at χthensέ

Rutkowski, ψέ 19κιέ “The Temple at Karphiέ” SMEA 2θμ25ι–κ0έ

Schaeffer, ωέFέχέ 19ι1. Alasiaέ Volέ 4έ Mission Archéologique D’Alasiaέ Parisμ Librarie Klincksieckέ

Smith, JέSέ 2009έ Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Ageέ New Yorkμ ωambridge Uniάversity Pressέ

Talalay, LέEέ 1993έ Deities, Dolls and Devicesέ Neolithic Figurines from Franchti Cave, Greeceέ Indianapolisμ Indiana University Pressέ

Tsipopoulou, Mέ 2009έ “Goddesses for ‘Gene’? The Late Minoan IIIω Shrine at Halasmenos, Ierapetraέ” In Archaeo logies of Cult: Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine Cέ Gesell, edited by χέLέ D’χgata and χέ van de Moortel, 121–3θέ Hesperia Supplέ 42έ Princetonμ The χmerican School of ωlassical Studies at χthάens.

Ucko, PέJέ 19θκέ Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Mateάrial from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greeceέ Royal χnthropological Institute, Occasional Paper 24έ Londonμ χndrew Szmidlaέ

Webb, JέMέ 1999έ Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot Bronze Ageέ Jonseredμ Paul Åströms Förlagέ

Whittaker, Hέ 2009έ “The ωultic Function of Mycenaean χnthropomorphic Terracotta Figuresέ” In Encounters with Mycenaean Figures and Figurinesέ Papers Presented at a Seminar Swedish at Athens 27–29 April 2001, edited by χέάLέ Schallin, 99–111έ ActaAth κ° XXέ Stockholmμ Svenska institutet i χthenέ

ZonouάHerbst, IέNέ 2009έ “Trashing the Sacredμ the UseάLife of Mycenaean Figurinesέ” In Encounters with Myάcenaean Figures and Figurinesέ Papers Presented at a Seminar Swedish at Athens 27–29 April 2001, edited by χέάLέ Schallin, 1θ1–ι5έ ActaAth κ° XXέ Stockholmμ Svenska institutet i χthenέ