Η αρχιτεκτονική του ιερού του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη της Βιάννου

THE ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE SANCTUARY OF SYME OVER THE YEARS. THOUGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The centuries-long operation of the sanctuary of Syme over a period of more than 2.600 years provides the opportunity to follow the long-term architectural evolution of the buildings and outdoor constructions and at the same time to draw useful conclusions about the use of space, interconnected with the social structures and religious concepts, which influenced the architectural composition and design.

The establishment of the sanctuary of Syme dates back to the MM IA/IB period (ca.1900 BC), as is indicated by the pottery study and by the scarce remains of building constructions, that were found in the deeper layers of the excavation. However, the sanctuary took the form of an organized building complex around the middle of the MM IB period (ca. 1850 BC), a little later than the construction of the first palaces, since the surviving architectural details presuppose the existence of a significant construction experience. The choice of location[1] was not incidental: the site was an important junction point on the mountainous pathway which, bypassing the steep slopes of Dikti Mt., led from central Crete to the south-eastern coast. The natural plateau, partially protected from adverse weather conditions, especially the northern winds, with the inexhaustible throughout the year spring and the superable view, provided the wayfarers with an ideal site to stop and rest. In an area with intense animal husbandry activity, both in antiquity and today, the site of the sanctuary was a point of reference during the movement of herds from the plateau of Viannos’ Omalos to the winter herding stations and vice versa. The form of the building complexes V and U (pl. 20, 45, 67 and 68), of the protopalatial period, to the extent that this can be reconstructed on the basis of the remaining ruins, befits an autonomous unit of a mountain refuge[2] with the capability of temporary accommodation for both the contributors and the participants in the, as well as the supporting functions of the outdoor worship practice. From the size of the complexes U and V, calculated to be approximately 600m² and 475m² respectively, it follows that the buildings had the capability to meet the needs of approximately 40 to 50 people[3]. The remains of a paved road both along the northern face of building complexes V and U, as well as in the northwestern corner of the excavation site (pl. 21, 46), indicate the direct relationship of these protopalatial buildings with some open-air worship space to the northwest, in a position, which has not yet been identified and whose localization could be the focus of future research.

The mountainous location of the sanctuary and the prevailing climatic conditions, with the great amount of snow during the winter and the high temperatures during the summer, influenced the design of the protopalatial building complexes V and U. The uniqueness of the sanctuary of Syme throughout the Minoan period does not allow a comparison with other similar buildings. However, the inner space design of these building complexes (pl. 20, 34, 45, 67 and 69), is clearly based on the general architectural concept of the Minoan palaces. A central hypostyle hall has been constructed in the protopalatial complex V, in the place of a courtyard, which would have been an unsuitable architectural solution, due to adverse weather conditions during the winter months. Similarly, in the protopalatial complex U, three continuous rooms with elevated roofs, ensuring lighting and ventilation through skylights, formed the central core of the complex, facilitating the communication between the circumferentially arranged building wings. The design and layout of their individual spaces suggests that the building wings had a clearly differentiated function from one another. Unfortunately, there are no excavation findings (sealed pottery assemblages, etc.) associated with floors, which would provide clues to the function of the wings, in relation with their architectural layout. The only exception is the northern wing of the protopalatial complex U, where the finding of pithos fragments, stone grinders and a large number of conical cups indicates its function as a possible storage area. In any case, it is considered that the protopalatial complexes V and U covered the needs of cult practice and possibly even provided accommodation to a small number of people.

The interpretation of the sanctuary of Syme as an independent religious center in the protopalatial period is consistent with the currently prevailing view that at this time, in addition to the development of central authority, regional and fairly self-sufficient economic units had been organized, probably under the control of the palaces[4].

The protopalatial building complex V, dating back to the MM IB period (1900-1800 BC), is notable for its elaborate and luxurious construction. A strong earthquake, during and probably around the end of the MM IB period, destroyed it completely. During the MM IIA period (1800-1750 BC) the remaining ruins were cleared and the site was leveled off in order to build, in the same location, the second protopalatial building complex U, based on a similar architectural design. The building complex U was fully functional since the beginning of the MM IIB period (1750-1700 BC) or even a little earlier.

Around the end of the MM IIB period (1700 BC), a strong earthquake with subsequent rock fall caused significant damage to the building complex U. The north wing was completely destroyed, never to be used again. The remaining parts of the building were repaired in great haste and reinforced, in fear of further rock falls, in order to ensure continuation of its use. At the beginning of the MM IIIA period (around 1700 BC) the small building Ub was added within the initial outline of complex U. Apparently, the focus of open-air worship, which was initially located at a distance from the protopalatial complexes V and U, now shifts within the original outline of the U complex and is confined within the small tripartite open-air shrine Ub.

During the MM IIIA period, a radical reorganization of the sanctuary was planned, with the erection of monumental outdoor constructions. According to the new plans, a systematic and gradual abolition and deconstruction of certain areas of the U complex were taken over, following the progress of the construction of the neopalatial Enclosure. In order to address the need to secure sheltered auxiliary spaces, some rooms of the U complex remained in use until their demolition was required. At the same time, the construction of two small independent buildings, W and Wa, ensured a temporary additional building infrastructure for the needs of the construction site. Buildings W and Wa were demolished after the completion of the construction of the Enclosure, as they were no longer needed.

The neopalatial period (MM IIIA-LM IB) (1700-1450 BC) is the period of greatest prosperity of the sanctuary of Syme. The monumental construction of the Enclosure (pl. 150, 151), which impresses both with its size and with its construction details, would not have been realized if the following three conditions did not apply:

1. Worship ritual had already taken a crystallized form[5], decisive for the architectural design, which had to cover clearly predetermined functional needs.
2. There were the necessary know-how and construction experience in large-scale building projects, the social structures and power centers, where the decision to design and implement the project was made, the necessary financial resources as well as the skilled or unskilled workforce. Of great interest is the entire organization of the construction of the Enclosure with the gradual and systematic demolition of parts of the building complex U, as well as the construction of buildings W and Wa to ensure a temporary infrastructure to meet various practical needs.
3. The expected number of participants in the religious rituals and the expected arrival of pilgrims justified the monumental scale of the entire project; based on the votives and other excavation findings, it should be considered not only as a unique architectural promotion project but also as a utilitarian project, for meeting the religious needs of a large number of worshippers.

The uniqueness of the sanctuary during the neopalatial period is possibly due to the accidental fact that either no other sanctuaries have been found. It is however possible that perhaps there were no other religious buildings of this scale in Crete, in which case, a transregional, pan-Cretan importance of the sanctuary would justify the monumental character of its architecture.

Monumental neopalatial constructions include the following elements:

1. The official “processional” road.
2. The strong perimeter wall of the Enclosure.
3. The podium.
4. The zones of bonfires, depositions and ritual dinners, between the strong perimeter wall of the Enclosure and the podium.

The official access road, conventionally called the “processional road”, following a zigzag course from the northwest to the southeast, with alternating stepped and inclined sections, of extremely careful construction, led pilgrims and sacred processions to the center of the place of worship. The design of the processional road ensured the continuous visual contact of those descending with the center of worship. However, as they approached the southwest corner of the Enclosure there was a dead zone of visibility, perhaps intentional, as a desire to add an element of “surprise” for them just before the sacred processions arrived at the place of worship. The open rainwater drains along the processional road, as well as the low side walls on either side of the steps and the pavements, protected the whole structure, preventing at the same time the entry from intermediate points. The plan (p. 149) and the construction details of the processional road lead to the conclusion that it was a closed road, starting in the northwest, outside the sanctuary, and ending in the area to the east of the podium.

The design of the processional road indicates an association of the Enclosure with a space to the north-west of the excavation, which has not yet been located and whose function remains unknown. Nevertheless, the fact that during the protopalatial period an outdoor worship space, in relation to the building complexes V and U, was probably located in the same area, should not be underestimated.

The perimeter wall of the Enclosure was a very strong structural element in the overall architectural design. Its role was to isolate and highlight the place of worship, dedicated to the “divine element”, separating it from its external environment. However, the uniqueness of the perimeter wall of the Enclosure of the Syme sanctuary lies in the fact that, apart from merely defining and separating the place of worship, it was an integral part of a monumental open-air architectural composition of purely religious character.

The podium was the central core of the entire design of the Enclosure. Elevated by about 1.00m in relation to the paved plateau to the east, it was probably intended for the priesthood, being at the same time an architectural element defining the hierarchy. The placement of the priesthood at a higher level is a timeless architectural approach, independent of religious perception and ritual practice. The design of the podium in the sanctuary of Syme finds correspondence in much later constructions and architectural layouts of spaces in relation to the altars of the geometric era and even later. Its monumental, imposing and particularly detailed construction fully justifies the particularity and formal function of the space. Covering an area of approximately 80m², the podium would not provide freedom of movement for more than 16 active participants[6] in the ritual practice.

The space between the podium and the strong Enclosure wall, divided in three zones, the north, the west and the south respectively, was intended for bonfires, depositions and ceremonial dinners. The northern zone communicated at its eastern end with the paved entrance of the Enclosure, east of the podium. Based on the abundance and on the type of the archaeological findings, it is deduced that the northern zone of bonfires, deposits and ceremonial dinners had the greatest importance. After all, this zone, between the podium and the northern part of the strong Enclosure wall, protected from the northern winds, created a feeling of security and was essentially the most suitable place for bonfires. In addition, both watching the events and participating in the ceremonies were easier there, due to the direct proximity to the main entrance area.

The flat paved area to the east of the podium, was probably not only the official access to it, but possibly also a standing area for pilgrims and participants in the ritual. It arrears that the paving continued beyond the boundaries of the Enclosure and was probably part of the general arrangement of the entrance area.

Beyond the entrance area of the Enclosure extends a free plateau, the boundaries of which to the east are not clear, although the spring's runoff stream was a possible natural boundary (pl. 11). This plateau to the west of the spring, with an area of approximately 250m² and with an estimated capacity of around 400 to 600 people, would be the ideal place for the pilgrims to stand and watch the religious events. In addition, the plateau to the east of the spring is considered to be an ideal place for the temporary settlement and accommodation of the pilgrims during the days of the celebration. The area of the plateau, of approximately 3200m², would suffice for the temporary accommodation for about 400 people[7]. It should also be taken into consideration that many of the pilgrims would come from neighboring places and would not need to find accommodation in area of sanctuary.

The spring and its runoff stream, which probably did not differ much from today, formed the natural eastern boundary of the sanctuary and separated it from the area of temporary settlement and accommodation of the pilgrims. The gorge, further more to the east, as well as the steep mountainside to the north, constituted the natural boundaries of this camp, available for the temporary settlement and accommodation of the pilgrims. There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of a permanent building installation to meet the accommodation needs of such a large number of people in this area.

To the southeast of the Enclosure and at a relatively short distance from it, the minimal architectural remains of the strong building T were found, which is considered to have covered the needs of a covered area for the preparation of worship, also due to the remote location of the sanctuary.

Traces of architectural remains to the southeast of the Enclosure and at a relatively short distance from it, belong to the strong building T (pl. 153-154), which, due to the remote location of the sanctuary, is considered to have covered the needs for the preparation of worship. The remains of the walls of building T are very similar in structure with the Enclosure wall, indicating a chronological correlation with it. However, the complete destruction of building T, due to seismic activity, extensive landslips and changes in the geomorphology in the south-eastern sector, as well as the absence of excavation layers related to it, do not allow us to reconstruct its form, to determine its function and to confirm its dating.

The monumental construction of the Enclosure leads us to the conclusion that it was designed with the perspective of a long-term use and indicates not only an era of prosperity but above all the existence of a strong central authority, which took the decision to implement the project. It also indicates that the sanctuary already held an important place in the religious life of a wider region, and that the expected number of more than 400 pilgrims could justify the size of the project. In the sanctuary of Syme we have not only a center of worship of local character, but a recognized since ancient times consecrated place of pilgrimage, supported and controlled by a central authority. After all, the relationship between the places of worship and the palace centers during this period is also confirmed by other interventions in peak sanctuaries, especially that of Juktas[8].

The participation of numerous pilgrims, coming from different parts of Crete, indicates the existence of an advanced road network on the island, organized by a strong central authority and supporting widespread economic activities between different regions. The prosperity of the sanctuary of Syme during the neopalatial period reflects a general economic prosperity and an advanced political organization on the island at this time[9].

The Enclosure, in its original form, was used for about 200 years, i.e. from the MM IIIA to the late LM IA period (from 1700 to about 1500 BC), when it suffered extensive damage from rock falls and local subsidence[10] of the ground, mainly in the south and southeast, due to a strong earthquake, which was caused by the eruption of the Santorini volcano and which resulted in the general destruction of the Minoan centers. The building T has also been completely destroyed by the earthquake and the subsidence of the ground. After the destruction of building T and the south-eastern area of the Enclosure, access to the ceremonial area was differentiated: the descending course of the processional road from the northwest towards the Enclosure was interrupted by the construction of wall D471-E471[11] (pl. 160); on the northern face of the wall there are indications that a new paved road, with a W-E direction, was now bypassing the Enclosure. In addition, the south-west corner of the Enclosure, the south-west part of the processional road as well as the rainwater drainage system in the same area were abolished with the gradual construction of the building complex S (pl. 176-179), during the LM IB period (1500-1450 BC). With the construction of the building S, the area to the south of the podium ceased to be used for the outdoor worship and ceremonies. The construction of the retaining walls IIIA and IIIB and the arrangement of the entrances of the building S indicate that access to the remaining Enclosure complex, as well as to the building complex S, was now planned from the south and southwest.

Building S can in no way be considered as a simple construction. Its limited surviving architectural elements characterize it as an elaborate construction, similar to the Enclosure, of which it must be considered an integral part. It was designed carefully and built gradually, so as not to disturb the function of the sanctuary, and the established worship ritual. Great attention was also given to the foundation of the individual structural elements, which were grounded on pre-existing walls, indicating the builders' desire for increased resistance to geological phenomena and the wear and tear of time. The architectural design of S does not give the impression of a solid building, but has rather the character of successive additions to an original core during the LM IB period. The successive and additive construction of the building indicates an urgent need to create covered spaces in support of the outdoor worship. The strong construction of the building complex S indicates the intention to continue to perform outdoor worship in the same space, with the same formality and for a long time, while abandoning any plan to restore the original form of the Enclosure. Unfortunately the plans for its long-term use have not been realized as at the end of the LM IB period (1450 BC) the building S was abandoned. However, the northern part of the building S, which belonged to the last phase of its construction, appears to have been preserved in relatively good condition and its walls were partly used in later constructions.

In the following three centuries of decline, but also of significant political and social changes in Crete, no significant building activity is observed in the sanctuary of Syme. Temporary constructions or small-scale repairs of the ruins of the building S, in order to ensure rudimentary building infrastructure during the LM II, LM IIIA and LM IIIB periods (i.e. from 1450 to 1200 BC), should not be ruled out, as the sanctuary continued to be an important center of worship and attendance of believers, as confirmed by the findings[12].

During the LM IIIC period (1200-1070 BC) the single-room building Q (pl. 181-182) was built, in contact with and sharing the eastern wall (S/Q) of the older building complex S. The construction of the building Q attests to the continued operation of the sanctuary, even in times of general decline, when other religious and residential centers of Crete were abandoned.

The trapezoidal shape of building Q indicates the intention of the builders to avoid contact with the south-west corner of the podium, in order to maintain unobstructed access to the area dedicated for bonfire depositions and ceremonial dinners already since the neopalatial period. It also proves that the podium, or at least its southwest corner, was still visible and in use during the postpalatial period, a fact which is also confirmed by the stratigraphy, the pottery and the votive offerings.

In addition to the east wall of room {s9} of the building complex S, it is confirmed that the north wall of rooms {s8} and {s9} of the building complex S was preserved in relatively good condition and was used for the construction of building L (pl. 182), adjacent to building Q. Building L had two rooms, the proportions of which are characteristic of storage spaces. It is noteworthy that the space to the north of L and up to the northern perimeter wall of the Enclosure continued to be used for worship. Equally remarkable is the fact that the western wall of building L was founded on the western part of the Enclosure wall, suggesting that the ruins of the large outdoor constructions of the neopalatial period still played a role in the planning of the space during the LM IIIC-subminoan period (1200-970 BC). It is possible that the two rooms of building L formed a single building with Q, a fact which possibly dates L to the LM IIIC period (1200-1070 BC). From the excavation data it appears that the use of building L continued during the subminoan period (1070-970 BC).

Interesting evidence emerges from the study of the sanctuary during the proto-geometric-geometric period (970-710 BC), which prove that the practice of worship, although differentiated, continued uninterrupted in the sanctuary of Syme. The Homeric classification of deities, which prevails as the official expression of the religion, is influenced, in part, by earlier religious conceptions[13] and sets the ritual of worship on new bases[14]. It is not clear whether building L still existed and was used to provide sheltered space during this period. After all, the change of religion, with the consequent change of worship ritual, appears to have led to the limitation of the necessary liturgical vessels, and therefore to the reduction of the need for storage areas. It should also not be ignored that during the proto-geometric period the area of the podium as far as the northern part of the Enclosure wall had been transformed into a relatively flat unified area of 600m², a plateau, where only limited ceremonial activity is observed[15].

From the beginning of the excavation, a strong and low wall, 4.00m long and 1.00m wide, oriented N-S, was revealed in the center of the excavation area (rectangle K50) and a little south of the neopalatial podium. This was definitely identified as a proto-geometric altar (pl. 186, 187). Its aspect ratio of 4/1 and its low height classify it in the category of low trapezoidal altars and date it precisely to the proto-geometric period[16]. It is noteworthy that the orientation of the wall is perfectly parallel to the east wall of the ruined building Q, the architectural remains of which were laid out and transformed into an accessible plateau of unknown use, possibly also ensuring an unobstructed view of the altar from the southwest.

To the north of the proto-geometric altar, the very strong and elaborate wall J was constructed, oriented A-W. The position of wall J, its orientation and its elevation directly relate it to the southern side of the neopalatial podium, which was still visible and of which wall J was, in some way, an extension. A step along the south side of wall J facilitated access to the plateau, the flat space created by leveling the podium and the area extending north of it. The excavation findings and especially the stratigraphy certify that this plateau, which extended to the northern perimeter wall of the Enclosure, although accessible, had not been used as a place of worship. A proto-geometric hearth located to the south-west of the altar was an isolated cultic element.

Particularly important is the proto-archaic period (700-630 BC), during which the sanctuary of Syme experienced a new flowering. A significant, in comparison to the previous proto-geometric and geometric era, expansion of the area of outdoor worship in terraces (pl. 193, 194) developed to the south of the sanctuary can be observed. A solid almost square construction with a rectangular pit[17] in its center and a step on its eastern side was added in contact with the northernmost part of the eastern face of the pre-existing proto-geometric altar. The form of this construction places it in the category of ritual altars with a pit for liquid libations, with a purely chthonic character[18]. The position[19] of the altar is at the center of the worship activity which extended between the terraces in the south and the ruins of the Enclosure wall in the north.

The terraces to the south of the proto-archaic altar (pl. 193), had a stepped arrangement from north to south, following by the inclination of the ground. Ritual dinners were taking place in the terraces, while at the same time it was possible to observe the rituals, libations and processions, in relation to the altar. Further south of the terraces, a channel, related to the performance of the cult, was built to drive the water of the spring through the cult area; the channel delimited the worship area from the south.

During the same period, the strong walls G and F were built on the plateau to the north of proto-geometric wall J, probably in order to demarcate individual cultic practices. A hearth installation was found in contact with the western face of the northernmost part of the western wall G. As libations in the altar were, obviously, of a different character from the holocaust rites in the proto-archaic hearth, the arrangement of the open space with the construction of walls F and G is justified by the need to spatially separate the different rites.

The general organization of the place of worship during the proto-archaic period suggests that the access of the worshipers was from the south and the southwest, probably through the terraces. As the location of the sanctuary and the prevailing weather conditions precluded the performance of outdoor worship during the winter season, it is considered possible that the numerous pilgrims temporarily lodged in tents or other makeshift structures on the wide plateau to the east of the spring, as was happening during the neopalatial period.

Around the end of the archaic period (530-490/80 BC) or rather at the beginning of the classical period (490/80-450 BC), building E was built, in the northeast corner of the pre-existing neopalatial podium, where the entrance to the Enclosure was located. The foundation of the walls of building E on mixed remains of outdoor worship, from the neopalatial period up to the 7th c. BC, date it to an era later than the proto-archaic period. After all, its construction rendered useless the space associated with the proto-archaic hearth. According to the study of pottery[20], the building was probably abandoned before the end of the classical period. The use of the building and its association with cultic practice have not been established with certainty.

Along the northern face of the northern wall of the neopalatial Enclosure and almost in contact with it, a second wall was revealed, the exact dating of which is dubious; it is, however, considered immediately prior to the constructions of the following hellenistic period. Its construction is of particular interest, because this wall extends significantly to the east and encloses the spring, including it for the first time within the area of the sanctuary.

A little to the south of building E, the construction of the small temple C-D (pl. 216-218) in the hellenistic period (323-31 BC) as well as its repairs and alterations during the greek-roman times, confirm the role of the sanctuary of Syme as a place of pilgrimage[21]. The sanctuary of Syme, as attested by the inscriptions found in relation to the building[22], was dedicated to the worship of eponymous now deities, Hermes and Aphrodite[23], and had come, in part, under the care, maintenance and protection of the city of Lyktos. The place, consecrated since the Minoan era, maintained its importance and attracted pilgrims from places all over the island. According to the spirit of the time, groups of believers, arrive at the sanctuary, seeking a more direct communication with the deities, beyond the public religious life of the cities. During the hellenistic and the greek-roman periods, rituals no longer had a purely outdoor character and sacrificial services were performed in relation to the very small but important religious center of the roofed building C-D, a point of reference for the groups of pilgrims and wayfarers during their stop and rest in the protected area near the spring.

The small Christian church, which was built in the northwestern area of the archaeological site during the early years of the Early Byzantine period, presents two construction phases and expresses the memory of the sanctity of the area, despite the essential change of religious perceptions. Noteworthy is its construction, of locally available materials, some in second use, following the same building practices[24], which were used for centuries in the sanctuary of Syme. During the Early Byzantine period, which is characterized by the construction of large basilicas in relation to coastal settlements, the construction of an isolated small and humble temple in a mountainous location seems like a contradiction, but it is perfectly interpreted as a place of pilgrimage in an area already consecrated since prehistoric times.

Summarizing the above observations, we could suggest the following:

1. The accidental discovery of the sanctuary of Syme during the construction of the mountainous rural road to the plateau of Viannos’ Omalos in 1972 led to the fortunate coincidence of the locating the central core of the sanctuary in the beginning of the research.
2. Systematic excavation of the site during the years 1972 to 2003 revealed the most important part of the sanctuary, in an area of approximately 3000m². Traces of walls in the wider area suggest that the sanctuary occupied an area of 5000m², in its flourishing period. The boundaries of the area to the east are defined by a water spring and its stream, but in the other three directions they have not been determined.

iii.      The sanctuary of Syme was a very important center of worship with uninterrupted function for about 2600 years, from the protopalatial to the early Christian period, despite the fundamental changes in religion and worship practice. Its special importance and its diachronic function as a pilgrimage center was probably the reason for the description of the wider area as “Holy Mount” by Ptolemaeus[25].

1. Despite its seemingly isolated position, the sanctuary was built at a pivotal point on the mountainous path, which led from the area of Pediada to the southern coast, to Myrtos and Ierapetra. The flourishing of the sanctuary was influenced, among others, by the particularity of its location, the geomorphology of the land and the existence of the water spring.
2. The sanctuary of Syme presents common characteristics but also essential differences from the known categories of Minoan sanctuaries and therefore cannot be included in any of them. Being the only, so far known, example of the diachronic coexistence of characteristic elements of outdoor and indoor places of worship, it could be considereded a religious center.
3. During the centuries-long use of the sanctuary of Syme, new constructions disturbed older structures, buildings were founded at a great depth on pre-existing walls, while building material has been reused. Natural causes of decay and destruction played a decisive role. Buildings collapsed due to earthquakes or local ground subsidence. Rocks were detached from the steep slopes to the north of the site, rolled towards the sanctuary and caused irreparable damage to the buildings. Extreme climatic conditions with intense temperature changes between summer and winter were a permanent cause of deterioration of the stone structures. Loose soils and groundwater affected the foundations and reduced the static strength of the structures.

vii.     During the protopalatial period, the important building complexes V and U, of similar design and function, were erected successively, to support worship, which at that time was performed in an open space and at a distance from them. The construction of the building complexes presupposes the existence of the significant building experience, which had been acquired during the construction of the first palaces. Special climatic conditions affected their form. The central courtyard of the Minoan palaces was replaced in the building complex V by a central hypostyle hall, while a corresponding architectural solution was also given in the building complex U, where, however, the central sector was divided into three adjacent rooms.

viii.    Remains of pathways in the NW sector of the excavation clearly indicate the communication of the protopalatial complexes with an outdoor worship area, the location of which has not yet been determined.

1. Earthquakes, rockfalls, underground water and loose soils resulted in the successive destruction of the above buildings. For this reason, building complex U presents four building phases, in addition to the original one.
2. During the first major reconstruction of the protopalatial complex U, which dates back to the MM IIIA period, the small building Ub was constructed within the outline of the original complex in order to ensure an uninterrupted although rudimentary worship. Both the construction of Ub and the repair and strengthening of the remaining part of U indicate an attempt to protect the building from rockfalls from the north.
3. The following alterations in the building complex U are not due to natural causes, but follow a systematic successive demolition of its rooms, in order to facilitate the construction of the neopalatial Enclosure, based on an absolutely defined plan.

xii.     The construction of W and Wa as auxiliary buildings of the “work site” of the Enclosure, during the MM IIIA period, and their demolishion, when they were no longer necessary, is of particular interest.

xiii.    The outdoor constructions during the neopalatial period present a focal point in the history of the sanctuary and the Enclosure, as an integrated monument, is a unique example of religious architecture of the period. The construction of the Enclosure presupposes the existence of a strong central authority[26], financial prosperity, construction experience and know-how in large-scale and monumental projects and certainly a crystallized form of the cultic ritual, decisive for the architectural design. It presupposes, also, that the sanctuary of Syme had already acquired special prestige and importance as a religious center, so that the monumental outdoor constructions were justified by the expected participation numbers of worshipers.

xiv.    The monumental constructions of the neopalatial period include the podium, the perimeter wall of the Enclosure, the official “processional road” and the area intended for bonfires, depositions and ritual dinners, defined between the strong perimeter wall of the Enclosure and the podium. The roofed building T should be considered as in direct relation to the open-air neopalatial constructions, to meet, possibly, various opperational needs. The location of the starting point of the official “processional road” remains unknown. It should have been somewhere to the northwest and outside the limits of the archaeological site, where the ruins of an access path, related to the protopalatial complexes V and U, has been identified.

1. The Enclosure, in its original form, was used for almost two hundred years, until the end of the LM IA period, when it suffered extensive damage, mainly in the south and southeast, due to a strong earthquake accompanied by rock falls and local ground subsidence. Building T, considered as directly related to the Enclosure, was completely destroyed.

xvi.    After the destruction of building T at the end of the LM IA period, the need to make available covered spaces to support outdoor worship led to the construction of building complex S. With the construction of S, accesses to the Enclosure were differentiated and the downward course of the processional road was interrupted. The architectural design of the building complex S has the form of successive additions to an original core and indicates the ever-increasing need to make available covered spaces. In spite of the extent of the architectural intervention, the construction of the building complex S did not significantly alter the nature of outdoor worship in the Enclosure. Despite its builders’ clear intention for its long-term use, building complex S was abandoned less than a hundred years after its construction.

xvii.   The decline of Crete during the LM II, LM IIIA and LM IIIB periods is also evident in the sanctuary, but the continuation of sacrificial acts is indicated by important finds and by the construction of the building Q during the LM IIIC period. The trapezoidal shape of the building Q, which did not obstruct access to the area of bonfires and ceremonial diners, suggests that during the postpalatial period the podium was still visible and influenced the design and general function of the sanctuary.

xviii.  Adjacent and to the west of building Q, the new building L had two rooms, possibly for storage use. The walls of building complex S, which had been preserved in relatively good condition, were used for its construction. It is possible that building L together with building Q formed a single building complex. In this case building L would be contemporary with building Q and should be dated in the LM IIIC period. In any case, the use of building L continued in the subminoan period.

xix.    During the Proto-Geometric period, the Homeric pantheon, which had prevailed as an official expression of religion, influenced by local religious concepts, defined on new bases both the ritual of worship and the general planning of space. During this period, an altar of the type of trapezoidal altars has been built. Its orientation deviates from the B-N axis of the older structures, but it is parallel to the eastern wall of building Q, the remains of which have been transformed into an accessible plateau of unknown use. The construction of the strong wall J with a step along its southern facade indicates the, albeit limited, use of the space to the north of the altar.

1. Particularly important for the history of the sanctuary is the proto-archaic period, during which the sanctuary of Symi experienced a new evolvement. A significant expansion of the worship space to the south is observed, in terraces adapted to the ground slope.

xxi.    The formation of an open water channel south of the terraces both demarcated the area of the sanctuary and was absolutely relevant to the performance of worship. In addition to the construction of the terraces, the plateau to the north of the proto-geometric wall J was delimited by the construction of the strong walls F and G; in this area a hearth installation was established. The construction of walls F and G is interpreted by the need to spatially separate the bloodless sacrifices on the altar from the holocaust rituals in the hearth area.

xxii.   In the archaic period, or rather at the beginning of the classical period, building E was built on top of earlier remains of open-air worship dating from the neopalatial period up to the 7th c. BC. Its construction shut out the space associated with the proto-archaic hearth. The building was abandoned at the end of the classical period. Its poor state of preservation, almost at the level of foundations, and the lack of finds do not allow to drawing any conclusion wbout its specific use.

xxiii.  The small temple C-D was built during the hellenistic and the greek-roman period, indicating the desire to seek communication with the “divine” in the preserved ancient sanctuaries as places of pilgrimage, beyond the limits of the public religious life in the cities. Structural elements, excavation findings and inscriptions indicate that the temple, dedicated to the “heterosexual transcendental/divine dipole”[27] of Mercury and Venus was a place of pilgrimage of particular importance and that until the end of the 3rd c. AD, or the beginning of the 4th c. AD, it was repaired several times.

xxiv.  To the north of the neopalatial Enclosure, a second enclosure wall was built, of uncertain dating; it is, however, considered earlier than the constructions of the hellenistic period. Its construction is of particular interest because it expresses a broader concept, by the inclusion of the water-spring in the worship area.

xxv.   Echoes of the sanctity of the space and fleeting memories of the old glory of the sanctuary are reflected in the humble and deserted churches of the early Byzantine times.

The study of the architectural evolution of the sanctuary of Syme, which has been based also on the parallel studies of findings, resulted in a more complete understanding of its diachronic organization and function, in accordance with the religious and social background, which dictated the various architectural transformations during a period of more than two thousand and six hundred years. Nevertheless, some issues still remain unclear:

1. The extensive alteration of the geomorphology of the ground in the southern and southeastern sectors of the archaeological site after the subsidence of the soil and the total collapse of the buildings did not allow the study of the extensions of the protopalatial complexes and the neopalatial constructions in this area.
2. The existence of pathway remains of the protopalatial period in the northwestern sector, indicates the existence of an area for the performance of outdoor worship, the exact location and function of which remain unclear. In addition, the starting point of the neopalatial processional road in the same area has not been located.

Nevertheless, despite any ambiguities and gaps in our knowledge, the uniqueness and diachronic importance of the Syme sanctuary remain indisputable, and the continued study of the excavation findings leads to an ever-improving understanding of the organization and function of the site through the ages.

[1] Λεμπέση 2021, 178.

[2] The form of the Syme sanctuary during the protopalatial period should be considered as equivalent to the monasteries, which were established in subsequent periods at key points of mountain passes.

[3] For the calculation, the approximation factor c=1 person/10m², which refers to residences, has been used, somewhat arbitrarily. Renfrew 1972, 251.

[4] Schoep 2002, 101; Renfrew and Cherry 1986, 19-45.

[5] Barshinger 1987, passim.

[6] The calculation is based on the coefficient of 5m²/person, which is considered reasonable, although somehow arbitrary, as the type of ritual is not known to us. The dimensions of the podium were obviously influenced by the desired number of participants and the type of ritual.

[7] The number was calculated based on the coefficient c1 = 8.0m²/person, which is 20% reduced in relation to the minimum coefficient of required permanent installation space, see Renfrew 1972, 251, where a factor of 10m²/person to 20m²/person is given for a prehistoric settlement of permanent residence. Another calculation gives cmin=7.0m²/person based on a tent area of dimensions 1.80X200m² (two persons) and a distance between tents on average of 1.80m, see Neufert 1970, 141.

[8] Καρέτσου 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, passim, especially Καρέτσου 1985, 295-296; Rehak and Younger 1998, 141-143, where the brief comparative examination of the peak sanctuary of Iuchtas with the sanctuary of Syme; Rutkowski 1986, 76-84.

[9] Αλεξίου 1964, 37-43; Rehak and Younger 1998, 100-148.

[10] Λεμπέση 1984, 453 (for the problem of soil subsidence in the area of the sanctuary) and 1987β, 273; Driessen and McDonald 1997, 35-45.

[11] The dating of the wall D471-E471 in the MM IIIA-LM IB period is not documented.

[12] Λεμπέση 2021, 179· Kanta 1991, 479-505.

[13] Λεμπέση 2021, 180.

[14] Λεμπέση 1987α, 149.

[15] According to the study of pottery. Kotsonas (forthcoming).

[16] Yavis 1949, 87, 107-115, where and the relative bibliography.

[17] Ekroth 2002.

[18] Sinn 2005, 14-22.

[19] Λεμπέση 2021, 181-182.

[20] Kotsonas (forthcoming).

[21] Λεμπέση 2021, 188-189, 191.

[22] Κριτζάς 2000, 85-97.

[23] Λεμπέση 2021, 191-201.

[24] During the investigation of the wider area of the sanctuary by the archaeologist Dr. Prokopiou, it was unexpected to find that similar construction methods and architectural forms are found, almost two millennia later, in the relatively modern village of Mythos, which was abandoned at the beginning of the 20th century.

[25] Λεμπέση 1972, 202. This assumption is strengthened by the fact that the sanctuary was visible from passing ships (pl. 7).

[26] Knappett and Schoep 2000, 365-371.

[27] Λεμπέση 2021, 191.