Contextualizing Continuity at Mt Lykaion 13

The study of continuity of cult from prehistoric to historical times has recently been stimulated by a series of striking new discoveries, in particular those at Mt. Lykaion and Kalapodi. Niemeier identifies the latter with the historical sanctuary of Apollo at Abai.13 Agia Irini on Kea, the Amyklaion in Laconia, and the Polis Cave on Ithaca also

exhibit continuity.14 Other later cult sites with Mycenaean material include Delphi and Olympia, but continuity cannot be demonstrated.15

But, as McInerney has recently argued, the continuity exhibited by the remains of Kalapodi does not in any way imply uniformity across time. The strata at Kalapodi differ in the richness of the dedications, and, while a series of temples were built one on top of the other at the site of the same sacred hearth in the Geometric, Early Archaic, Archaic, and Classical periods, a second cult center was added in the ninth century B.C. at the sanctuary’s northern end.16 Furthermore, if Kalapodi was a cult site of Apollo during historical antiquity, there exists the vexed problem surrounding the circumstances of Apollo’s incorporation into the Greek pantheon, for he is currently unattested in the Mycenaean records.

Conversely, what is most important about continuity at Mt. Lykaion is the fact that ritual thysia (as described by Homer) and drinking ceremonies were continuously performed at the Ash Altar for well over a millennium (apparently into the second century A.D.; Paus. 8.38.7).17 _{Accordingly, it is not simply that the same geographical}

location was used as a sacred area; this conclusion can be made for the Athenian Acropolis from antiquity through to the early modern period, for after antiquity the Parthenon was used first as a church of the Virgin and subsequently as a mosque. Clearly

14 _{Coulson 1991; Dickinson 1994, p. 293.}

15 _{For Olympia, see Eder 2001. On Delphi, where there was a Mycenaean settlement, see Morgan 1990, pp.} 107-113; McInerney 1999, pp. 86-92 presents a regional overview.

16 _{McInerney 2013, pp. 194-195.}

17 _{On the ceramics, see the catalog in Romano and Voyatzis 2014, pp. 592-612, nos. 10-92; for the animal} bones, see B. Starkovich in Romano and Voyatzis 2014, pp. 644-648; Starkovich, Hodgins, Voyatzis, and Romano 2013; and Mentzer, Romano, and Voyatzis 2014. The analysis of Starkovich et al. 2013 goes through to ca. 500 B.C. but suggests that the same ritual practices continued into subsequent times.

there was continuity of a kind here, but the foci of cult shifted drastically over the course of time. Persistence of ritual practice at Lykaion, on the other hand, adds a much greater depth to the idea of continuity. As we shall discuss below, the particular kind of practice at Lykaion – sacrifice of animals according to Homeric prescriptions at an open-air altar formed from the resulting ashes – accords well with the original referent of the epithet ‘Lykaios.’ I suggest that continuity of cult on this scale implies depth of tradition much more so than at other sites where continuity has been identified.

By way of comparison, consider Cosmopoulos’ recent study of continuity at Eleusis, where there was a break in activity during the Early Iron Age.18 Cosmopoulos stresses in particular the significance of place and practice for assessing the nature of continuity. At Eleusis, a Late Helladic altar was the setting for burnt animal sacrifices, but when cult resumed in Geometric times, the location and practice had changed, with

enagismoi now performed on pyres at some distance from the earlier megaron. These new practices were arguably associated with a chthonic cult. Cosmopoulos continues: “these differences suggest that the rituals served different religious needs and that the ‘essence’ of the cult underwent a significant transformation between the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. Despite the continuity in the habitation of the site, there is no

evidence to suggest continuity in religious rituals and beliefs and, therefore, continuity in function.” Significantly, we have such continuity at Mt. Lykaion, both with respect to the place of cult and the ritual practiced.

It is also of interest that three more sites where Mycenaean sanctuaries have been identified generally correspond to the topographical situation of Mt. Lykaion, where offerings were made on a remote mountain peak. The sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Hymettos produced some Mycenaean material, but admittedly Langdon expresses doubts about its association with the later sanctuary.19 _{Mt. Oros on Aegina also has evidence for Late}

Helladic ritual, including a splendid terracotta figurine.20 More recently, the Greek Archaeological Service has discovered a Mycenaean sanctuary at Agios Ilias on Mt. Arachnaion in the Argolid.21 Note that in historical antiquity Hymettos, Arachnaion, and Oros were all centers of Zeus worship, the first of Zeus Ombrios, the second of Zeus and Hera, the third of Zeus Hellanios. It is thus very probable that the localization of Zeus on mountain tops has its origins in a Mycenaean understanding of the world.

There are, of course, skeptical voices on continuity of cult, and these must be acknowledged. Dickinson is generally suspicious of continuity,22 but note his

enlightening comment concerning local traditions: “In fact, Greek religion did not exist in a unified form, but rather in a great many variants that might share many features but were ultimately exclusive to particular communities … Such localised beliefs and practices might be expected to have the deepest roots in the past, but their history is effectively impossible to trace, for, quite apart from the major discontinuities in the archaeological record, it is clear from consideration of the textual evidence available that

19 _{Langdon 1976, pp. 53-55, nos. 177-189, 86-87, with fig. 18, pls. 16-17.} 20 _{Pilafidis-Williams 2011.}

21 _{Psychoyos and Karatzikos 2011 (Conference Abstract: “Mycenaean Cult on Mount Arachnaion –} Summary,” Conference: Mycenaeans Up to Date: The Archaeology of the NE Peloponnese – Current Concepts and New Directions).

a great deal of public religious activity was of a kind that would be almost impossible to identify archaeologically.” Of course, the unbroken continuity at Mt. Lykaion provides us with the rare opportunity of investigating the development of such a local tradition. Sourvinou-Inwood and Whitley have voiced similar concerns about simplistically inferring continuity in tradition from continuity in cult.23

The only way to get beyond this scholarly impasse is to employ an

interdisciplinary approach to the problem, and we must address each individual instance on a case by case basis. This will rid us of the simplistic ideas wrought by incongruous comparisons between sites, which each have their own distinctive histories. Accordingly, in what follows I incorporate archaeological, historical linguistic, literary, geological, and topographical data in order to elucidate continuity and change in the cultic practice and myth tradition of a single locale, that of Mt. Lykaion in Parrhasia.